Military Review

The most useless warships

239

These ships are truly lucky. In a real combat situation they would have been “broken” to the fullest. The very first battle threatened them with heavy losses, not justified by anything other than the obstinacy of high ranks and the excess profits of the "effective managers" involved in the creation of these vessels. Whose decisions were dictated by any considerations other than enhancing combat effectiveness fleet.


And the enemy ... The enemy would have minted commemorative medals and celebrated victories. Of course, without mentioning the fact that the losers simply had inefficient ships.

Leading unprepared people into battle means betraying them.

(Sun Tzu.)

But the battle check did not take place. Everyone gradually forgot about the shortcomings of those ships and were even proud of them.

Awkward and incapable, they displayed a flag in peacetime, after which they peacefully perished in a re-melting. Their heirs continue to sunbathe under the Californian sun, without worrying about anything in their careers.

The specific names of those who are guilty of creating vessels cannot be named. Ships - the fruit of the collective mind, which often took on strange forms.

Separate design teams worked on their narrow tasks, unaware of the overall progress of the project. As for the appearance and the concept of application, they were also chosen by more than one person. Any ship is a compromise in the struggle of interest groups, often holding completely opposite views on the tasks facing the fleet.

Inadequate terms of reference gave rise to problems associated with the need to combine fantasies with harsh reality. Another time, courage of ideas was ahead of the possibilities of technology. Innovation literally “devoured” the ship.

Somewhere too many “effective managers” have stolen. It is no secret that most projects born in peacetime have a single goal: to cut the defense budget.

But pretty philosophy. We are waiting for at least five not the best pages from stories navy. If a respected reader decides that five cases are not enough, he can always expand this list by adding his “nominees” to it.

Large cruisers such as Alaska


Alaska and the same type of Guam are real American veterans. Participants in the fighting in the Pacific. On a cloudy morning of April 1945, they, along with six battleships in the 10 community of aircraft carriers, boldly advanced to intercept the Yamato (with full confidence that the battle would end before the arrival of the linear forces).

The canonical description of Alaska among marinist historians was this phrase:

Too large and expensive to be used as cruisers and too weak and vulnerable to joint operations with battleships ... according to American experts themselves, they "were the most useless of the large ships built during the Second World War."

(Kofman VL Supercruiser 1939-1945. "Big cruisers" type "Alaska.")

The most useless warships

In addition to the indistinct application concept, super cruisers were built without attention to anti-torpedo protection - nonsense for the shipbuilding of the 1940's. The very first meeting with the submarine threatened Alaska and the two thousand sailors aboard it with a catastrophe similar to the death of Barham or the Japanese Congo.

Of the six planned cruisers, two were completed. On the third building, the admiral’s enthusiasm was completely exhausted, and the construction of the large (in Russian sources - linear) cruiser “Hawaii” was stopped at a degree of readiness of 80%.


Alaska (left) and the Washington battleship awaiting a cut line

After a couple of years of aimless walking on the waters of the Pacific Ocean, Alaska and Guam were joked. The next dizzying step in their career was cutting for scrap.

American universal landing ships (1971 g.- n.a.)


It began with Tarava and continues to this day. UDC “Wasp”, “Makin Island” and the project with the proud name “America”.

Unarmed low-speed "barges" worth billions of dollars. Too expensive to operate in peacetime and completely useless in combat.

The fleet did not feel the need for such bulky landing ships. Also, as the marines themselves did not feel the need for them. "Tarava" did not fit into the concept of the use of the Marine Corps - there they realized for a long time that classic landings were a thing of the past.

Only one side was interested in creating super-UDC. The shipyard in Pascagul, where this one was built, and all subsequent 45 000-ton hippos.


The shipyard is distinguished by enviable performance - to date, there have already been 15 landing helicopter carriers. And the value of recent contracts has crossed the line of 3 billion dollars per unit.

In practice, all transport tasks of the UDC are provided by a fleet of military transports, which larger and faster any "Tarawa", while also able to unload on the high seas.

Tactical helicopter landings are made from the decks of high-speed aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class (as was the case during Operation Eagle Claw).

In peacetime, more modest ships cope with the tasks of patrolling, including Helicopter carriers based on civilian tankers. Which is being built at the present time.

Unlike the Europeans, indulging in their Mistrals, the US Navy has a large fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers, against which the capabilities of the Uospa and Taravy air groups look simply awkward.


It is interesting that, despite the increased price tag, the new generation of UDC “America” completely lost the docking camera for landing boats, turning into a stub of a classic aircraft carrier without catapults, crawling at a speed of 20 knots.

Well, the main question - who wants to be on her deck in the war zone, under the fire of the "Bastions" and "Caliber"?

Heavy Aircraft Cruisers


Compared with the American “Tarava”, its peer, TAKR “Kiev”, seems an undoubted triumph. His example shows how many combat systems can be placed on a ship with a displacement of 40 thousand tons!


Eight anti-ship "Basalts", four medium and short-range air defense systems, anti-submarine missiles, perfect sonar, artillery. Crew 2000 people. Power plant power - 180 000 hp (2,5 times higher than that of Tarava). Cruising range - more than one and a half times.

But this story has a flip side.

It is difficult to contain resentment by observing what the idea of ​​the Soviet aircraft carrier fleet in the 1970-80-e was.

8 anti-ship missiles - a salvo of one submarine, etc. 670M. All other armaments of the 40-thousand-ton TAKR corresponded to the 7-thousand-ton BOD.

Such giants should not be built in order to cross the arms of an anti-submarine ship and a submarine. 270 meters of length are required for the takeoff / run of jet aircraft with a take-off mass of tens of tons.

However, missile launchers and a bulky superstructure occupied half of the upper deck of the TAKR. In the remaining half, a handful of Yak-38 without a radar and a combat radius of 150 km crowded.


In the absence of any alternative, helicopters became the main active force of the air group. As such, the TAKRs traveled all over the world, depicting the Soviet aircraft carrier fleet. More vague questions were given vague explanations: "TAKR is not an aircraft carrier," "it has important anti-submarine missions," "there are few aircraft, but count the missiles."

The final result, despite all the technical splendor, never once met the plan for the appearance of aircraft carrier ships in the Soviet Navy. The last hopes of the supporters of this idea, who promoted the aircraft carrier’s design under the camouflage designation “TAKR”, were ultimately destroyed by supporters of the opposite point of view.

Who was ready to spend billions of rubles, and if necessary, to pay with thousands of other people's lives in order to justify their erroneous postulates and original ideas about the appearance of the fleet.

Zamvolt


The creators of Zamvolt faced a difficult mission. Create a destroyer capable of surpassing the very successful Orly Burke project.


It turned out powerfully.

Six antennas of an all-seeing radar, from which neither a periscope flashed among the waves, nor a satellite at cosmic heights. Combined missile-cannon weapons. New layout. Instead of crowded sections of UVP - the placement of missiles around the perimeter of the deck, in mines with kick panels. Unprecedented visibility reduction measures. Increase in the overhaul life of mechanisms. Crew reduction.

Of all the promises, almost nothing has been achieved. The tactical and technical assignment of Zamvolt can be safely transferred to the science fiction library.

The creators of the cannons, who perverted the very idea of ​​naval artillery of the 21st century, were especially pleased. Instead of an auxiliary system, ready to bring down a shower of "blanks", invulnerable to any "Shell" and air defense systems, with a minimum reaction time and immunity to weather conditions, something surprising happened here. The artillery shot of Zamvolt was equal in cost to the launch of a cruise missile!

For such ships that have not gone into the series, there is a poetic nickname "White Fleet Elephants". But the three Zamvolta built are “lame elephants” who have not received even half of the combat systems envisaged by the project. And given the initial level of ambition, the Zamvolt project suffered a deafening fiasco.

There is not a single gram of sympathy in these lines. The hostile nation “failed” the program to create a new generation of destroyers. Seven feet above the keel. We wish partners to work in the same direction, increasing the degree of absurdity.

However, they can cope with this without our advice.


Little Crappy Ship (LCS)


The fleet cannot consist only of cruisers and destroyers alone; for some tasks, ships of the third rank are needed. Instead of the usual watchtowers and corvettes, the LCS, an innovative coastal warship, was proposed. The speed looked a little strange - 50 knots, of great importance for a displacement ship of this size. But the rich have their own quirks ...

In reality, for half the cost of a missile destroyer, it turned out to be a “vessel”, in which, instead of Aegis, a MANPADS, and a machine gun from shock weapons. The modular concept did not materialize. Firstly, the time taken to replace the modules. Secondly, the very availability of the right models. Finally, quick-detachable equipment is inferior in capabilities to complete systems.


The creators of LCS continue to insist on "special tasks in the coastal zone", but the sailors have a simpler opinion. With the funds spent on creating the LCS, it was easier to build a dozen Orly Berkov corps with a reduced armament. Full-fledged combat units would have turned out, in contrast to the “littoral ship”, which is not capable of withstanding even the simplest threats.

Anti-rating is not limited to the presented examples.


Here could be, for example, artillery submarines. French "Surkuf" and a series of Soviet squadron submarines of the type "Pravda". Absolutely crazy ideas, embodied in metal, contrary to all the arguments of skeptics.

The creators of Surkuf and Pravda did not seem to notice that the submarine, due to its specific contours, layout, and less buoyancy, was categorically incapable of operating in the same formation with destroyers and other surface ships. A submarine from such a “diving destroyer” will also turn out to be dubious.

Which was confirmed in practice.

In a later era, the Americans distinguished themselves by building “very large light cruisers” of the “Worcester” type with automatic 152-mm “anti-aircraft guns”. At a time when the danger from high-altitude bombers was recognized as practically zero, and completely different caliber and rate of fire were required to ensure ship's air defense.

Nowadays, the Germans are weird with their frigate F125 Baden-Württemberg. A huge, empty and slow-moving box with a displacement of 7000 tons, bearing almost no less weaponsthan the Russian RTO Karakurt (800 tons).

As you can see, the number of inadequate and meaningless projects will increase steadily over time. A direct consequence of the fact that 40 of the most developed economies in the world have not fought each other for 70 years. In such circumstances, priority is given to profits from the implementation of a project in the field of military shipbuilding. Be sure, we will see many more paradoxical and not too useful constructions.

Author:
239 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. DAC scratch
    DAC scratch 4 December 2019 05: 51
    +11
    Oh kaptsov, lol long time no see
    1. Civil
      Civil 4 December 2019 07: 02
      +36
      The direct consequence of the fact that 40 of the most developed economies in the world have not fought for 70 years, have not fought with each other.

      Some managed to lose without war.
      1. Santa Fe
        4 December 2019 07: 19
        +40
        The forty most developed economies in the world have not fought each other over the past 70 years. Humanity has not known such a strong and long period of peace since the time of the Roman Empire.

        All the losses of the USSR for nine years of war in Afghanistan matched one day Kursk arc. Together, all armed conflicts, civil wars and genocides of the past 70 years have claimed fewer lives than World War II. This is even more surprising given the almost three-fold increase in the population of the Earth.
        1. Pereira
          Pereira 4 December 2019 10: 40
          +14
          Killing people with weapons has become expensive and inefficient.
          Today this is done only if the deadlines are running out. And if there is no need to rush, much more reliable means are used.
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 7 December 2019 18: 43
            0
            So yes, it’s much easier to organize a color revolution and let the Papuans kill each other themselves.
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 4 December 2019 14: 04
          +8
          Oh! Already a stone from the soul ...
          So Dear author, you DO NOT consider the two coastal defense battleships "Novgorod" and "Kiev" (later - "Vice Admiral Popov") to be useless warships!
          Thanks !!!
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 7 December 2019 04: 23
            0
            Quote: hohol95
            So Dear author, you DO NOT consider the two coastal defense battleships "Novgorod" and "Kiev" (later - "Vice Admiral Popov") to be useless warships!
            Just did not enter the TOP 5 wassat
        3. antivirus
          antivirus 7 December 2019 14: 05
          -2
          that 40 of the most developed economies in the world have not fought each other for 70 years.
          ONE WAR ALL WILL CORRECT-ZERO THE GENIUS AND PUT NEW IDEAS
  2. DAC scratch
    DAC scratch 4 December 2019 05: 56
    -7
    yes, kaptsov, God himself advised you to write to you 1) you would read why the Americans began to make their UDC 2) "It is interesting that, despite the increased price tag, the new generation of UDC" America "completely lost the docking camera for landing boats" - yes, and they build docking cameras on new ones, but I don't think you know that
    1. Santa Fe
      4 December 2019 06: 11
      +10
      would you read why the Americans began to do their UDC

      Pascagula shipbuilders wanted money, promised to create jobs in Mississippi
      Quote: crap scratch
      It is interesting that, despite the increased price tag, the new generation of UDC "America" ​​has completely lost its docking cameras for landing boats "- and docking cameras are being built on new ones, but I think you don't know

      I know that there is no docking camera

      "America" ​​even changed the designation LHD to LHA ​​(landing helicopter assault), for a reason

      1. DAC scratch
        DAC scratch 4 December 2019 06: 26
        -13
        Quote: Santa Fe
        would you read why the Americans began to do their UDC

        Pascagula shipbuilders wanted money, promised to create jobs in Mississippi
        Quote: crap scratch
        It is interesting that, despite the increased price tag, the new generation of UDC "America" ​​has completely lost its docking cameras for landing boats "- and docking cameras are being built on new ones, but I think you don't know

        I know that there is no docking camera

        "America" ​​even changed the designation LHD to LHA ​​(landing helicopter assault), for a reason


        1) yeah well stupid they don’t know the experience of using DC in Vietnam, but the smart Kaptsov who in the past managed a huge fleet saw through them 2) we don’t know about flight 1 but we argue persistently and we believe that other countries are also fools to build them
        1. Solieri
          Solieri 4 December 2019 06: 32
          +22
          Most useless ships - those that are most of the time standing at the pier, under repair ...
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 4 December 2019 10: 19
            +11
            Quote: Salieri
            The most useless ships are those that are most of the time standing at the pier, under repair.

            There are no useless ships, especially in the world of capital. The main purpose of the ship is to "make money". The developer company and the manufacturer make a project that is accepted (or not accepted by the Navy department). We need to make sure that the project is accepted, and even launched into a series. Competitors are eliminated, the project has gone into series, the interested parties have received a good sum. And no one is interested in the need for this ship, he went to work. This is no longer a useless ship, but a ship that brings "golden eggs". This is the world of capital.
            1. Private-K
              Private-K 4 December 2019 13: 13
              +8
              Quote: tihonmarine
              There are no useless ships, especially in the world of capital. The main purpose of the ship is to "make money".

              Don't think that this is only in the "world of capital". In the USSR, a similar thing happened more than once, and not twice.
              And to the list of Kaptsov should be added the Soviet BDK pr. 1174.
              1. tihonmarine
                tihonmarine 4 December 2019 14: 11
                -2
                Quote: Private-K
                Don't think that this is only in the "world of capital". In the USSR, a similar thing happened more than once, and not twice.

                We are excusable, but not American. They have such powerful shipyards, a huge naval theater of operations in WWII, Korean, Vietnam and many small ones. You can already learn. And we have during the Second World War, the Novorossiysk landing, and landing on the Japanese islands. After the Second World War, small arms deliveries to Egypt and Angola.
            2. pmkemcity
              pmkemcity 5 December 2019 08: 15
              0
              And the "Tripits", which stood at the wall throughout the war, is it useful or useless? Did the Germans have the opportunity to replace it with something more "useful"?
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal 7 December 2019 21: 00
              0
              Give an example of how they act in the world of non-capital.
          2. Alien From
            Alien From 5 December 2019 17: 58
            +4
            And I’ll add a little, mattresses MAY allow themselves such experiments, we do not need it at all!
          3. The comment was deleted.
        2. Santa Fe
          4 December 2019 06: 35
          +10
          No one is building such hippos.
          The same "Mistral" - half the displacement. Toys for those who cannot support the aircraft carrier. But a helicopter carrier and helicopters circling above the waves are beautiful
          Japanese "destroyer-helicopter carriers" - they have their own reasons. Japan has a constitutional ban on offensive weapons and aircraft-carrying ships
          1. DAC scratch
            DAC scratch 4 December 2019 06: 38
            -33
            answer me, did you manage a huge fleet of scattered ships or not, if not then you just look at the ship, see that it has no armor and consider it unnecessary
            1. Santa Fe
              4 December 2019 06: 42
              +24
              DAC scratch blown away))) if there is nothing to add on the topic - there are delusional, fragmentary questions about nothing
              Anyway, thanks for participating in the conversation.
              1. DAC scratch
                DAC scratch 4 December 2019 06: 44
                -25
                and I’m just on the topic lol your comment is another proof that you don’t know why UDC was created fool
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 28 December 2019 04: 34
                  +1
                  Quote: DAC scratch
                  and I’m just on the topic lol your comment is another proof that you don’t know why UDC was created fool

                  I completely agree with you, "Santa Fe" does not understand why the UDC was created. And it’s a shame that you "scratch scratches" in vain put the cons. If anyone does not know then go read what is "managerial hell" during landing operations. And only then you can read that the UDC are hiding behind other ships, and therefore there is physically unnecessary torpedo protection because there are no submarines and torpedo boats ...
            2. tihonmarine
              tihonmarine 4 December 2019 10: 22
              +7
              Quote: crap scratch
              answer me, did you manage a huge fleet of scattered ships or not

              How I like our homegrown naval commanders. They control mystical squadrons and fleets, like their tricycle.
              1. Pereira
                Pereira 4 December 2019 10: 47
                +10
                I flew the fleet, not the fleet, but the aircraft carrier. In Warship. I can tell you a lot about the tactics of torpedo bombers near the coast.
                I am also an expert. And who does not consider me an expert, let him give an example of an admiral who has successfully used aircraft carriers in naval combat over the past 75 years.
                1. tihonmarine
                  tihonmarine 4 December 2019 11: 35
                  +8
                  Quote: Pereira
                  And who does not consider me an expert, let him give an example of an admiral who has successfully used aircraft carriers in naval combat over the past 75 years.

                  The arguments are in your favor. You’re at least in Warship, and the admirals are in the offices, but the whole chest is in orders.
                2. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 12: 54
                  +6
                  I am also an expert. And who does not consider me an expert, let him give an example of an admiral who has successfully used aircraft carriers in naval combat over the past 75 years.


                  Rear Admiral Guy Zeller, US Navy, Operation Praying Mantis, 1988.
                  For instance)))
                  1. Pereira
                    Pereira 4 December 2019 14: 03
                    +3
                    Whose aircraft carriers opposed him?
                3. Proxima
                  Proxima 4 December 2019 15: 15
                  +9
                  Quote: Pereira
                  I am also an expert. And who does not consider me an expert, let him give an example of an admiral who has successfully used aircraft carriers in naval combat over the past 75 years.

                  Dear expert, do aircraft carriers only participate in naval combat? belay I remind you that An aircraft carrier is primarily a mobile airfield with all the infrastructure. Ask any military Vietnam what was a real nightmare in the war with the Americans? All unanimously say: deck aviation! Indeed, the geographical position of Vietnam was ideal for the operation of carrier-based aircraft. hi
                4. Living7111972
                  Living7111972 5 December 2019 13: 55
                  0
                  I can’t get used to the new format, before the enemy had almost no chance against Avik. And now I'm learning 20-30 kilograms of damage, I consider it my norm. No other way.
              2. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 12: 46
                +4
                Your opponent is right. The idea of ​​UDC was born in Vietnam for quite objective reasons. Kaptsov made a hard mistake with this article. Especially in terms of UDC.
                1. DAC scratch
                  DAC scratch 4 December 2019 13: 22
                  -3
                  but for some reason they wildly slammed me, why can't they read the history of the creation of the UDC and only then write about them?
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 33
                    +8
                    It is very difficult.

                    We need to dig a topic starting from World War II, understand how the concept of landing from WWII to Korea and the Suez crisis evolved, then be aware of Vietnam’s naval assault forces, the role of helicopter carriers in them, the problems identified during these operations, the impact of the idea of ​​Sea Control Ship on the minds of naval commanders , etc. etc.

                    Here's a question to ask - how is the landing capacity of the Amer UDC and the states of their expeditionary units connected, given the fact that MEU may have very different staff depending on the task?

                    But how is the fact of the existence of large UDCs connected with the fact that the President of the United States can use only MPs without the permission of Congress? This is not a question for everyone. You need to know military history, to think about tactical issues of landing on shore, to know English.
                    Kaptsov clearly did not want to delve into it all.
                    1. Simargl
                      Simargl 7 December 2019 04: 27
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      It is very difficult.
                      Or not? UDC as a concept, until the advent of full-fledged attack helicopters (and aircraft with a short take-off and landing) - so-so idea ...
          2. Vol4ara
            Vol4ara 4 December 2019 10: 58
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            No one is building such hippos.
            The same "Mistral" - half the displacement. Toys for those who cannot support the aircraft carrier. But a helicopter carrier and helicopters circling above the waves are beautiful
            Japanese "destroyer-helicopter carriers" - they have their own reasons. Japan has a constitutional ban on offensive weapons and aircraft-carrying ships

            We know we swam ... Something similar happened in Germany when tanks were developed under the guise of tractors
          3. Cympak
            Cympak 5 December 2019 01: 04
            +1
            The whole point IMHO is that the Americans have a fleet separate from the marines. LHDs are the "aircraft carriers" of the Marines.
        3. Doctor
          Doctor 4 December 2019 12: 53
          0
          1) yeah well they are stupid they don’t know the experience of using DC in Vietnam but the smart Kaptsov who in the past managed a huge fleet saw through them


          Our real naval commanders in the real conditions of the Russo-Japanese, WWI and WWII ruled in such a way that it seems better to entrust Kaptsov. And judging by the accident rate and after the Second World War is not better.
      2. Oleg83
        Oleg83 4 December 2019 14: 23
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        would you read why the Americans began to do their UDC

        Pascagula shipbuilders wanted money, promised to create jobs in Mississippi
        Quote: crap scratch
        It is interesting that, despite the increased price tag, the new generation of UDC "America" ​​has completely lost its docking cameras for landing boats "- and docking cameras are being built on new ones, but I think you don't know

        I know that there is no docking camera

        "America" ​​even changed the designation LHD to LHA ​​(landing helicopter assault), for a reason



        Dock cameras will not be only on the first 2 ships of the series
      3. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell 6 December 2019 01: 01
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        why the Americans began to do their UDC

        As you call a boat, it will sail; captain Vrungel, especially when you consider that usmc is a word synonymous with Tarawa and Saipan rout. They are there 'mentally' rolled
      4. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 7 December 2019 18: 53
        0
        In America, for a long time, decisions on one or another weapon system for the navy, air force or ground forces have been made not by generals (admirals), designers or production workers, but by the financial lobby in Washington. And they have the same criterion, the more expensive the better. Hence the airplanes "V - 2", "F - 22", "F - 35". Aircraft carriers "Ford", although the sailors were quite happy with "Nimitz". Destroyers "Zamvolt" although "Arlie Burke" are still very much in line with reality. And there are plenty of such examples.
    2. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 4 December 2019 12: 10
      +2
      Indeed - the author does not know why the camera dock was removed in the first two Americas. He is not aware that there is physically no place on paratroopers for servicing aircraft engines and the marines have to carry them with helicopters to the shore or to an aircraft carrier. Therefore, on the LHA 6,7, the dock was given for repair boxes, turning them into self-sufficient aircraft carriers and allowing the Expeditionary Groups to operate independently, without the support of the AUG.
      1. Private-K
        Private-K 4 December 2019 13: 23
        +3
        That is, as it turns out, the UDC concept, even in its maximized (including cost) form, is not self-sufficient.
        Therefore, large recreation centers should be either helicopter-bearing or dock ships.
  3. Thrifty
    Thrifty 4 December 2019 06: 15
    +6
    Oleg, these are useless ships for you! This is money settled in feed, it is often a lot of money! !!
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 4 December 2019 10: 23
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      Oleg, these are useless ships for you! This is money settled in feed, it is often a lot of money!

      It is immediately evident that a person caught the thought.
  4. PSih2097
    PSih2097 4 December 2019 06: 19
    +11
    Well, UDC is a multifunctional ship, it’s both transportation / landing of expeditionary forces with all means of reinforcement and a light aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier, and tank landing ships, and even the flagship (headquarters) ship at the end ...
    1. Santa Fe
      4 December 2019 06: 28
      +7
      1. where they gathered to land, by the forces of a couple of thousand paratroopers. The defeat in Dieppe (1942) taught nothing?
      2. what are the means of amplification? 6 harriers?
      3. Why such a light aircraft carrier to a country with a full-fledged carrier fleet
      4. This is NOT a tank landing ship. The landing party, deprived of the support of heavy armored vehicles, is waiting for an even faster defeat
      5. what to do to a group of admirals on this barge in the vicinity of the enemy coast, from where rockets fly. The headquarters of naval operations in the 21st century - in the naval bunker of Gaet (Sicily)
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 12: 58
        +2
        1. where they gathered to land, by the forces of a couple of thousand paratroopers. The defeat in Dieppe (1942) taught nothing?


        UDC provides the landing of an advanced air support battalion. And there’s another San Antonio DVD
        1. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 5 December 2019 15: 44
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          UDC provides the landing of an advanced air support battalion. And there’s another San Antonio DVD
          ?! Please tell me Alexander, - How much is a bundle of these two ships named by you? Then tell me how much for the same amount, our Navy can order fr. 22350 and a Morgun-type BOD? Then please choose which would be preferable in our Navy, now?
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 5 December 2019 18: 41
            -1
            Do you want to test me or something? And why mix our fleet with the American?
            1. Nemchinov Vl
              Nemchinov Vl 5 December 2019 18: 48
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Do you want to test me or something?
              have mercy, Alexander. Not at all.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              And why mix our fleet with the American?
              I just wanted your opinion on the more expediency of spending the funds allocated to the Navy / Navy ...
          2. Sasha_rulevoy
            Sasha_rulevoy 5 December 2019 20: 52
            0
            Quote: Nemchinov Vl
            Then tell me how much for the same amount, our Navy can order fr. 22350 and a Morgun-type BOD? Then please choose which would be preferable in our Navy, now?


            But the truth is curious.

            One frigate 22350 costs $ 277 million. America - $ 3,4 billion. We'll throw another billion on the wing. Thus, one "America" ​​costs 16 frigates 22350 (but here it is also necessary to take into account that construction in different countries, they are built in one country, probably "America" ​​would be 10-12 frigates).

            Let's try to estimate which of them can hit the shore harder, one "America" ​​or 16 "Gorshkovs".

            16 Gorshkovs, 16 Calibers, 0,4 ton warheads each.

            16 x 16 x 0,4 = 102 tons of warheads

            There are six F-35Bs on board America. One F-35B, these are two two thousand-pound ZhIPiEs aerial bombs in one sortie. To be honest, I don't know how many ammunition they have. Well, roughly such ships are in the areas of hostilities for a month. Let's take 20 ammunition for the plane.

            Total: 6 x 2 x 0,9 x 20 = 216 tons.

            Those. for one only ammunition "Lightning" "America" ​​is twice as effective as the cost of "Gorshkov". And on it there are 7 more Sea Cobra helicopters. Each takes 76 HIDRA missiles at a time, each missile has a warhead of one kilogram.

            7 x 76 x 20 = 10 tons

            But the value of each such kilogram is much higher than a kilogram of the ZHPS of the directed ammunition, because the latter fall with a ten-meter deviation, and HIDRoy is aimed with direct fire through the cross of the sight. She can destroy a bunker, hit a moving target. In addition, there are Hellfire missiles, which more accurately hit moving armored vehicles. One helicopter takes 16 such missiles at a time. Let there be fewer of them, just a couple of ammunition, then

            16 x 7 x 2 = 224 missiles, which can correspond to roughly 150 armored targets destroyed, i.e. replace hits of at least 300 "Caliber" (and then only if the target is stationary, and its coordinates are known).

            So, air bombs = 200 calibers
            HYDRA = let another 30
            "Hellfires" = 300 (provided that the enemy uses a large number of armored vehicles)
            cannon ammunition - well, let another 20

            Total 550. only the armament of the America's air group is five and a half times more powerful. Or two and a half times, if the enemy does not have armored vehicles. Even without taking into account the weapons of the landing. We must also take into account the flexibility of use, the ability to conduct reconnaissance both from the air and from the ground by sabotage groups. The ability to conduct air combat. The ability to occupy the territory with a landing party. And many, many more advantages, and everything is on the side of the landing party.
            1. Nemchinov Vl
              Nemchinov Vl 5 December 2019 21: 51
              +3
              Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
              But the truth is curious.
              Honestly ?! That is, you are sure of the advantages of the UDC "America" ​​?! You are not even embarrassed by the fact that having met in the Mediterranean (well, imagine a hypothetical collision) against even 3-4 frigates 22350 ...
              Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
              In this way, one "America" ​​costs 16 frigates 22350
              ... but even against three or four, America will have a chance to survive and land troops ?! I think that her air wing, in such a confrontation "will not drag" ... Do not you think that the price is too different (and in the amount of money spent, as you have rightly noted above, and in the number of deaths) ?!
              Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
              Total 550. only the armament of the "America" ​​air group is five and a half times more powerful.
              It’s great, but alas, the chance to deploy this power, even in my proposed version of the collision, will not succeed ...
              Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
              Even without landing weapons.
              about the number of these doomed victims and to say sad ...
              1. Sasha_rulevoy
                Sasha_rulevoy 5 December 2019 22: 29
                0
                Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                You do not even bother, having met in the Mediterranean (well, imagine a hypothetical clash) against even 3-4 frigates 22350 ...


                UDC is a ship specially designed to combat the coast, which means that it must be evaluated by its ability to fight the coast. There are other ships to fight the surface fleet.
                1. Nemchinov Vl
                  Nemchinov Vl 5 December 2019 22: 51
                  +2
                  Bravo Sasha! I confess that I was expecting an answer like that. The truth is simpler ... Well, like - "big cows do not go alone, they are covered by the escort ships KUG", or the like. But you did not disappoint me much.
                  Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
                  UDC is a ship specially designed to combat the coast, which means that it must be evaluated by its ability to fight the coast. There are other ships to fight the surface fleet.
                  After all, initially (even when I asked my question to Timokhin, to which you decided to answer), it sounded like -
                  Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                  just wanted your opinions on the greater feasibility of spending money, allocated to the Navy / Navy
                  that is, the fleet.
                  Therefore, when they say that
                  Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
                  Those. for one only ammunition "Lightning" "America" ​​is twice as effective as the cost of "Gorshkov".
                  I think this is an exaggeration ... At least four times - an exaggeration ... !!
                  1. Sasha_rulevoy
                    Sasha_rulevoy 5 December 2019 23: 55
                    0
                    Quote: Nemchinov Vl
                    At least four times - an exaggeration ... !!


                    If we assume that the Russian fleet will never have to land amphibious assault forces, then you are right. Confused by this very "if".
                    1. Nemchinov Vl
                      Nemchinov Vl 6 December 2019 00: 51
                      +3
                      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
                      If we assume that the Russian fleet will never have to land amphibious assault forces, then you are right. Confused by this very "if".
                      If the Russian fleet needs to land assault forces, and at the same time it is rational to spend the funds allocated for it, then equivalent amount one "America", it would be more logical for him to order 7-8 frigates 22350 and 4-5 BDK type "Pyotr Morgunov". And the possibilities of their tactical use will be wider ... Well, even a very good and large UDC "America" ​​cannot simultaneously land troops, at once in two places (simultaneously) of the same Mediterranean. 4-5 BDKs can easily (divided into two groups) and each will have cover from a potential enemy from a group of frigates, which will also provide fire support during landing.
                      1. Sasha_rulevoy
                        Sasha_rulevoy 6 December 2019 19: 24
                        +1
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        which also provide fire support during the landing.


                        A-192m gun. Ammunition: 60 rounds. Subtract the antiaircraft guns, well, let them remain 30 high-explosive fragmentation. Explosive weight 3,56 kg, not impressive. For mounted fire on entrenched infantry, a shell is of little use. There is no armor-piercing projectile, i.e. concrete bunkers and tanks, it is harmless. And it’s impossible to shoot high-explosive high explosives on the coastal target. The first shell, having missed, will raise a cloud of dust, which will close this target, wait later, when it settles. To support the landing, the Americans took out 16-inch battleships from museums from museums, and they understood that.
                      2. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl 7 December 2019 01: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
                        A-192m gun. Ammunition: 60 cartridges...
                        please forgive me, Sasha, but you just will not leave a stone on a stone from me,
                        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
                        To support the landing, the Americans took out 16-inch battleships from museums from museums, and they understood that.
                        you can say, crush facts, and I merge ... otherwise you order the "Aurora" to resurrect, and offer to enter the number of warships of the Navy ... I pass.
                      3. Sasha_rulevoy
                        Sasha_rulevoy 7 December 2019 20: 29
                        -1
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        I apologize,


                        "A cartridge (unitary cartridge, Latin unitas -" unity ") is an ammunition for small arms and artillery pieces, with which the weapon is loaded in one step.

                        A unitary cartridge can be an artillery shot or a cartridge in which a projectile (bullet, buckshot or shot charge), a propellant charge, an igniting element (primer-igniter) and, sometimes, additional elements are connected into one piece by means of a sleeve. "
                      4. Nemchinov Vl
                        Nemchinov Vl 8 December 2019 23: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
                        "A cartridge (unitary cartridge, Latin unitas -" unity ") is an ammunition for small arms and artillery pieces, with which the weapon is loaded in one step.
                        thanks - "Vicki", can I call you that ?! It's just that gunners often use the word projectile, well, something like that ...
                        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
                        There is no armor-piercing projectile, i.e. concrete bunkers and tanks, it is harmless.
                        about the cover of fr 22350 and the presence of "calibers" in them, you decided to "leave out the brackets" (in the variant considered above). In addition, large landing craft of the "Gren / Morgunov" type have the ability to carry a "Katran" type turntable (or even two) to support the landing force ... As I understand it, from your logic, in comparison with the "America", this is attention doesn't deserve ?!
                        But it all started with Timokhin’s question about
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        just wanted your opinion about the greater feasibility of spending money, allocated to the Navy / Navy ...
                        Since there are so many opinions about the limited military budget ... In other words, today, in the absence of a sufficient number of main warships of rank 1-2 (cruiser, BOD / EM, frigate), sufficient to form the KPUG, "will the rear , the program for the construction of a UDC like "America", or will it benefit ?! I fully admit that when (if) the SF and the Pacific Fleet would have 22-25 pennants in combat formation (1-2 ranks), the Black Sea Fleet of about 12-15 units, the BF 7-8, it is possible to talk about the construction of a UDC for the Russian Federation. would make sense. But now then ?! ?! What can we talk about when - "the king is naked!" ... About the knowledge of "Wiki" is important now ?! Please forgive me if I unintentionally offended you, I rightly did not have this as my goal. I would just like to observe the logic of sanity in the Navy's shipbuilding programs, in a state of its revival, that's all I would like to say.
      2. Private-K
        Private-K 4 December 2019 13: 26
        +6
        You will not find support here - well, except for me. Everyone is fogged by the mind of the UDC concept triumphantly jumping around the fleets of the world. To understand the problems of UDC and, in general, large DCs, one must dive deep into the topic. And this is complicated.
      3. PSih2097
        PSih2097 4 December 2019 17: 45
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        1. where they gathered to land, by the forces of a couple of thousand paratroopers. The defeat in Dieppe (1942) taught nothing?
        2. what are the means of amplification? 6 harriers?
        3. Why such a light aircraft carrier to a country with a full-fledged carrier fleet
        4. This is NOT a tank landing ship. The landing party, deprived of the support of heavy armored vehicles, is waiting for an even faster defeat
        5. what to do to a group of admirals on this barge in the vicinity of the enemy coast, from where rockets fly. The headquarters of naval operations in the 21st century - in the naval bunker of Gaet (Sicily)

        So we are not specifically talking about the states, but in general about the concept ... unless the article was called "Most Useless US Warships"??? No, it was called "The most useless warships" those. about ships built around the world ...
      4. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 4 December 2019 22: 39
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The defeat in Dieppe (1942) taught nothing?


        Dieppe refuted your point of view that landing ships can be replaced by transports. Before the raid on Dieppe, there was such a theory in use that, they say, we suddenly land three hundred of the coolest commandos on shore, they will capture the entire port infrastructure as quickly and easily as in a modern action movie. Then we will drive transports to these berths, pulling tanks from the holds by port cranes and driving the fritz. None of this came out. It became clear that we needed specialized vessels capable of unloading equipment on an unequipped coast.
      5. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 4 December 2019 23: 39
        +3
        Quote: Santa Fe
        . gathered where to land, by the forces of a couple of thousand paratroopers. The defeat in Dieppe (1942) taught nothing?

        Strictly speaking, a couple of thousand paratroopers and with the support of the AUG are quite enough to offend perhaps two-thirds of the countries represented in the UN.

        Yes, and the Falklands, for example, Britain returned with the forces of three MP battalions, about 7 thousand people .. Three UDCs in all.

        Although in terms of strategic confrontation, you’re probably right, it’s hard to imagine a successful landing on the coast of China.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 4 December 2019 10: 25
      +3
      Quote: PSih2097
      Yes, even the flagship (staff) ship at the end ...

      One "boo" and there is no headquarters.
      1. Walking
        Walking 4 December 2019 14: 22
        0
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Quote: PSih2097
        Yes, even the flagship (staff) ship at the end ...

        One "boo" and there is no headquarters.

        But does UDC swim alone, without a convoy? He is always accompanied.
        1. aakvit
          aakvit 6 December 2019 10: 11
          -2
          Isn’t the anti-missile on the drum, is all of its accompaniment? They will beat on UDC! hi
    3. Doctor
      Doctor 4 December 2019 12: 56
      +7
      Well, UDC is a multifunctional ship, it’s both transportation / landing of expeditionary forces with all means of reinforcement and a light aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier, and tank landing ships, and even the flagship (headquarters) ship at the end ...


      Already wrote, I repeat. Marinesco's dream.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 4 December 2019 14: 33
        +6
        Quote: Arzt
        Marinesco's dream.

        And any bomb.
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 4 December 2019 17: 39
        +2
        Quote: Arzt
        Already wrote, I repeat. Marinesco's dream.

        Quote: tihonmarine
        And any bomb.

        UDC as well as AB does not walk unaccompanied, the same frigates / corvettes against aviation, against the nuclear submarines / submarines of submarines in the form of a Ka-27 pair, both from the UDC itself and from the BOD ...
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 4 December 2019 17: 45
          +1
          UDC as well as AB does not walk unaccompanied, the same frigates / corvettes against aviation, against the nuclear submarines / submarines of submarines in the form of a Ka-27 pair, both from the UDC itself and from the BOD ...


          But is there, in this case, the need for a specialized military transport ship? With such protection, an ordinary dry cargo ship will cope no worse. Which has been proven many times in various wars.
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 4 December 2019 17: 55
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            With such protection, an ordinary dry cargo ship will cope no worse.

            the cargo ship will have to be very specifically redone, but the cost of the alteration will be such an amount that it is cheaper to build a specialized ship.
            This is how to remodel an apartment from the secondary market - remodeling can come out almost twice as expensive as repairing the same, but only a new apartment.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 4 December 2019 18: 02
              +3
              the cargo ship will have to be very specifically redone, but the cost of the alteration will be such an amount that it is cheaper to build a specialized ship.


              And what is there to redo? Helicopters take off, and for the rest there are cranes. Even cruise missiles, at least S-300.
              Here is the legendary Arctic Sea. What is not UDC?



              But in general, a cargo ship makes money for the country in peacetime, and the UDC only spends it.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 28 December 2019 06: 12
                0
                The idea of ​​"making a military vessel out of a civilian vessel" has many problems
                1) pitch stabilization systems
                2) coupled geo-positioning systems with systems without towing mooring
                3) landing support systems (from air to the toilet)
                4) the system of dumping / lifting the landing from the water during the waves
                5) platforms for maintenance of aircraft and ground equipment
                6) strength parameters for the installation of weapons (at least UVP)
                and much more.
                In general, the idea, although possible for implementation, but with a significant reduction in fleet performance characteristics.

                Quote: Arzt
                But in general, a cargo ship makes money for the country in peacetime, and the UDC only spends it.
                In general, personally, analyzing this idea, I came to the conclusion that we need a special project of a military-civilian ship with the function of "militarization-demilitarization in the port" on which "military sailors in reserve" would serve and which would be leased to private-state firms (including foreign). But at the same time, in order to preserve the capabilities of the Navy, it will be necessary to strengthen the submarine fleet and create military transport aircraft-like aircraft with VTOL (VTOL) and various elements to them (from reusable buoys with SACs to retractable radar-AWACS and much more).
  5. mark1
    mark1 4 December 2019 06: 35
    +8
    4-6 UDC would not damage our fleet, I see nothing useless. Aircraft-carrying cruisers of the Kiev pr. 1143 type were created as a development of the anti-submarine cruiser pr. 1123. (improving the efficiency of the helicopter fleet by increasing the number and changing the location of the runway) Anti-submarine ship - everything else is additional "useful gadgets".
    1. Santa Fe
      4 December 2019 06: 39
      +8
      Quote: mark1
      Aircraft-carrying cruisers of the type "Kiev" pr. 1143 were created as a development of the anti-submarine cruiser pr. 1123. (improving the efficiency of using the helicopter fleet by increasing the number and changing the location of the runway)

      Because they didn't manage to get money for a normal aircraft carrier. I had to promote the idea as "the development of the anti-submarine cruiser pr. 1123. (improving the efficiency of the helicopter fleet by increasing the number and changing the location of the runway)"
      Unfortunately, in such conditions, the final result was infinitely far from the aircraft carrier.
      1. mark1
        mark1 4 December 2019 06: 49
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        I had to promote the idea as "the development of the anti-submarine cruiser pr. 1123.

        No, not at all - the aft location of the GDP significantly reduced the possibilities for the simultaneous use of a fleet of 14 helicopters. But the use of GDP attack aircraft is already the result of the effect produced on the admirals by the "aircraft carrier" type of anti-submarine cruiser, just as the increase in VI led to the temptation of giving additional. anti-aircraft functions ("Basalt"). But in any case, these are add-ons (useful or useless)
      2. Pavel57
        Pavel57 4 December 2019 09: 20
        +1
        Nedavianosets, so to speak.
    2. common man
      common man 4 December 2019 07: 05
      +2
      Quote: mark1
      Project 1143 was created as a development of the anti-submarine cruiser Project 1123.

      Yak-38 we have anti-submarines?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 4 December 2019 07: 27
        +10
        Yak 38 can be classified as "the most useless aircraft". For a long time I read a monograph about him, and so there were memories from the participants of the first Mediterranean campaign with these aircraft on board. When they met the enemy squadron, they decided to impress. But the plane did not want to come off the deck in the heat, even without bombs and NUR! Then almost all the fuel was drained from it! Yak38 took off, made a lap of honor around ITS ships and flopped onto the deck with empty tanks. So that other stormtrooper was ...
        1. Pavel57
          Pavel57 4 December 2019 09: 22
          +1
          Demonstration performance of the Yak-38 was in Afghanistan.
        2. Sasha_rulevoy
          Sasha_rulevoy 5 December 2019 23: 37
          0
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          So that one more attack aircraft was ...


          By the way, here it is strange, it seems that they licked off the "Harrier"?
      3. mark1
        mark1 4 December 2019 12: 10
        0
        Quote: man in the street
        Yak-38 we have anti-submarines?

        YOU are possible ... we didn’t know about this
        1. Walking
          Walking 4 December 2019 14: 28
          +2
          Quote: mark1
          Quote: man in the street
          Yak-38 we have anti-submarines?

          YOU are possible ... we didn’t know about this

          If someone does not know, this does not mean that this was not. Tests of the Yak-38 in Afghanistan were carried out in 1980. here is the link http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/afgan/yak38/yak38.html
          1. mark1
            mark1 4 December 2019 14: 44
            +1
            Quote: Hiking
            Quote: mark1
            Quote: man in the street
            Yak-38 we have anti-submarines?

            YOU are possible ... we didn’t know about this

            If someone does not know, this does not mean that this was not. Tests of the Yak-38 in Afghanistan were carried out in 1980. here's a link

            Excuse me - where is Afghanistan and where are the submarines? Unfortunately for some reason they deleted my comment but here is the link;
            https://lyricstranslate.com/ru/ляля-брынза-люди-читают-жопой-lyrics.html
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 December 2019 11: 26
      -1
      Instead of one "Kiev", a dozen normal BODs could be built. And it would have come out even cheaper. The Yak-38, like the Yak-141, is just sabotage, in the 30s they put up against the wall for this, and did not ask for wash or stupidity.
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 5 December 2019 23: 59
        +1
        A comrade who studied at Vasilkovskaya VATU told that their negligent graduates were assigned to the Yak 38. They often broke off into the water on take-off, they were taken out and then put into operation for several weeks!
  6. Walking
    Walking 4 December 2019 06: 41
    +7
    Submarines Surkuf and Pravda were still being built when the formation of submarines was going on, and the tactics of use were developed. What should be the submarine showed only the second world.
    1. Santa Fe
      4 December 2019 06: 48
      +2
      Quote: Hiking
      Submarines Surkuf and Pravda were still being built when the formation of submarines was going on, and the tactics of use were developed. What should be the submarine showed only the second world.

      They still had enough critics at the design stage
      1. Walking
        Walking 4 December 2019 06: 57
        +4
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Quote: Hiking
        Submarines Surkuf and Pravda were still being built when the formation of submarines was going on, and the tactics of use were developed. What should be the submarine showed only the second world.

        They still had enough critics at the design stage

        There have always been enough critics; this is not an indicator. Any ship is somewhere strong, somewhere weak
        1. Santa Fe
          4 December 2019 07: 03
          +4
          Quote: Hiking
          There have always been enough critics; this is not an indicator.

          This is clear. Projects had too many opponents among specialists. And all their fears were confirmed
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 4 December 2019 09: 28
      -2
      Your truth! Well, at least ours on a couple of boats and calmed down, and with the monster "Surkuf" and close to "Pravda".
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 December 2019 11: 27
      +1
      That's the submarine atrocities in the WWI atrocities.
  7. pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 4 December 2019 06: 54
    +25
    Controversial assessments and equally controversial examples.
    I strongly disagree with "Minsk" (I visited it in the 86th year). The ship could please the eye of the layman for a long time. As an anti-submarine operator, he was late, since the launch lines of SLBMs had moved away from our shores by the 80s, and as an aircraft carrier appeared early, since there was no aircraft. But, the main purpose of these ships was to educate the personnel of carrier-based aviation. There would be a plane, and there would be no questions. And as the concept of a "light" aircraft carrier, the TAVKR anticipated the current world madness, based on the results of the Anglo-Argentine conflict and the idea of ​​the Americans to assign the aviation component of the ASW to the allies.
    "Tarawa"? In the days of historical materialism, he was a helicopter carrier. Americans at that time were sick with helicopters after Korea and Vietnam. Who will condemn them? Yes, and we had boats ... "Wasp" is an attempt to make the same "Tarawa" work in "peacetime". But, the main task of the UDC, the fight against boats and air cover for the convoys, no one removed from them. It is enough to look at the "program" of any NATO exercise in the 70-80s.
    The Sumvolt is an American attempt to replicate the success of the Dreadnought. So to speak, in one day to cross out everything previously built, and go into the lead at a qualitative leap. And if we return to the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, it will become clear that Sumvolts, even rich countries, cannot have many. An example of this are battleships of the 40s, the price and, most importantly, the cost of operating which exceeded all conceivable limits. So it's not clear. what else will come of it.
    "Alaska" was built at a time when all battleships opposing America had already been destroyed. It was pointless to drive your own to give "combat stability" to the AUG, so this project was born. It was not the stupidity of the developers that killed him, but the development of the URO. This is the fate of all projects that are being built at the turn of the eras - as an artillery ship, it surpasses everything previously built (remember "Tsukuba"), and as a ship of a new era, it was slaughtered on the slipway.
    A lot of words. I will not bore the readers, let them think of it themselves ...
    1. Santa Fe
      4 December 2019 07: 26
      +4
      Quote: pmkemcity
      "Alaska" was built at a time when all battleships opposing America had already been destroyed

      The opponents of Alaska were considered Japanese heavy cruisers
      Quote: pmkemcity
      like an artillery ship, it surpasses everything previously built

      They did not exceed anyone, the Yankees simply inflated the heavy cruiser to unprecedented sizes and increased the caliber from 203 to 305 mm. what nullified the very idea of ​​a cruiser

      It turned out to be too expensive for its class, at the price of a battleship, but still too weak to be considered LC
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 4 December 2019 08: 52
        +5
        The idea of ​​a cruiser (a cruiser, not to be confused with a "cruiser") died along with the "Alabama", although our cruisers a la Monomakh, who did not shoot, pulled money out of the English shipowners through the same Lloyd. "Brooklyn" was built much earlier for the Japanese, and "Alaska" is exactly what I said above and nothing else.
    2. Private-K
      Private-K 4 December 2019 13: 50
      +2
      I strongly disagree with "Minsk" (I visited it in the 86th year). The ship could please the eye of the layman for a long time.

      That's it, that layman. Then you yourself pointed out that as a hunter for SSBNs he was late.
      It is quite true that the aircraft carrier was spoiled by the installation of the Basalt anti-ship missile system (and the Vodopad PLRK was not needed in the presence of submarine helicopters).
      The concept of a "light aircraft carrier", like an aircraft carrier in general, implies a "clean deck" - this is a direct and well-known conclusion based on the results, and along the way, of WWII. The pre-war aircraft carriers had anti-ship weapons - during the war they were quickly removed, tk. turned out to be their uselessness and harmfulness (they took up space, pulled the weight). And on the aircraft carrier, project 1143, they returned to the presence of anti-ship weapons by installing Basalts. If it were not for it, the ship would be a real "light" aircraft carrier.

      "Tarawa"? In the days of historical materialism, he was a helicopter carrier. Americans at that time were sick with helicopters after Korea and Vietnam. Who will condemn them?

      And who condemns for helicopters? Helicopters are the most useful and useful thing for naval landing. They condemn for a false approach to the integration of a helicopter carrier and a dock ship in one mega-ship.
      UDC Tarava being UDC actively involved in the operational-strategic PLO. So tell me how much more efficiently this task would be carried out by a clean helicopter carrier without carrying a huge heavy dock camera under its belly? Americans went the wrong way.
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 4 December 2019 19: 38
        +1
        There was no plane and there was no helicopter, because there was no kerosene, there was no motor resource, there was no RSL (according to one of our teachers, one buoy cost as "Volga"), but there was a KPUG, "Waterfall" was, "Basalt" was, and "Storm" is the same, by the way, the URC - so the nuclear warhead shies away that it will not seem a little.
        And "Tarawa" grew out of "Iwo Jima", which, in turn, grew out of "Essex" left after the war, which were transferred to the category of "light aircraft carriers", because in comparison even with "Midway" they looked like that could receive jet planes. Light aircraft carriers, as a class, emerged during the war, as escort ships at the beginning, and later, as ships of control of the area. Airborne assault vehicles and marines are nothing more than an attempt to enlist these useless ships in peacetime in police duties. "War is ... war!"
    3. nedgen
      nedgen 5 December 2019 01: 31
      0
      Sorry, Paul, but about Alaska, you're a little mistaken. They were taken to the reserve when about URO NOBODY EVEN AND DID NOT THINK serially. Especially about RCC. Alaska was withdrawn to the reserve on Feb. 17. 1947 Guam even before. Back in February 1946. And how is it consistent with the URO ??? Somehow I do not have enough imagination. Moreover, both of them were the only ones in the Amer fleet to carry a 305mm caliber, which created certain supply problems. Of course, probably in their warehouses shells of armadillos were littered even before the dreadnought era laughing So unfortunately Oleg is still right about Alaska. You can read more about the reasons for creating Alaska here: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_alaska_class_cruisers.html
      And even if Alaska were really necessary ships, then what the hell after only 2-3 years of operation, they were put in reserve ??? And then they were never decommissioned again. But Iow was written off only in the 90s
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 5 December 2019 08: 06
        +1
        Alaska was built to give combat stability to high-speed aircraft carriers, which the Americans already had, but high-speed battleships did not yet exist. They were taken to the reserve, as I said, in view of the fact that the goals for them ended. And they wrote off, because the URO did not leave any chance for them. You find yourself in the typical trap of names, classifications, translations into Russian, comparisons with our "classification", etc. Can you tell me what a "cruiser", "battleship" or "ship" is? I think that the etymology of these words will greatly surprise you. A "schooner", "brig", "frigate" or "battleship" can be "cruisers"? Or vice versa - a "brig" or "frigate" can be "battleships"? Having answered these questions, you can understand the rest - all sorts of "destroyers", "battleships", "corvettes-frigates", etc.
  8. Escobar
    Escobar 4 December 2019 07: 17
    +13
    As part of this article, Russian patrol ships of project 22160 could be added.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 00
      -2
      Yes, that's for sure. They could have been one of the first places.
  9. rocket757
    rocket757 4 December 2019 07: 21
    +3
    Be sure, we will see many more paradoxical and not too useful constructions.

    It has always been like this, it always will be!
    But, without useless, controversial designs, masterpieces are not born!
    Military equipment is being built for use in extreme situations, because war is not a holiday, so you can verify the concept completely, often only then .... so not everything is absolutely and obvious in the review.
    1. Santa Fe
      4 December 2019 07: 31
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      But, without useless, controversial designs, masterpieces are not born!

      There is no connection between these two events.

      People make mistakes, but that doesn't mean it's good.
      And masterpieces are born from promising ideas that have nothing to do with strange and inadequate projects that have found embodiment in metal contrary to common sense
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 4 December 2019 07: 50
        +2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        There is no connection between these two events.

        Why is this? It’s very useful, you know, to make sure that this way, specifically, DO NOT DO !!!
        And to create a masterpiece, if it is full HOW NOT JUST, it will not work!
        Previously, not everything could be calculated and verified on paper! There were NO computer simulations!
        Now, fundamental mistakes, this is very laziness or stupidity !!! but again, even the most, the most comp, can only check what a person has put into it ... and a person is mistaken!
        1. Santa Fe
          4 December 2019 08: 02
          +5
          Quote: rocket757
          It’s very useful, you know, to make sure that this way, specifically, DO NOT DO !!!

          In disputes with friends who claimed that everything should be tried in this life, I usually advised starting with my own feces.

          There was talk of things known to be dangerous to health; here we are talking about stupid ships - but the essence is one
          Quote: rocket757
          Previously, not everything could be calculated and verified on paper! There were NO computer simulations!

          No simulation is needed to understand the obvious fact.

          For example, that a submarine cannot operate in the same formation with a surface ship, and a surface ship cannot turn into a submarine. In the first case, the power plant will not have enough power, and the layout will not allow you to place and apply the art. weapons. In the second case, the buoyancy margin of the surface ship will make the emergency diving process = infinity
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 4 December 2019 08: 15
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            No simulation is needed to understand the obvious fact.

            Dreamers have always been, and dreamers in positions ... this also happens.
            For those who are in positions, there are often few reasons other than such major ones as with a head on the head!
            1. Santa Fe
              4 December 2019 08: 24
              +4
              Quote: rocket757
              and visionaries in posts

              this is called incompetence
              Quote: rocket757
              For those who are in positions, there are often few reasons other than such major ones as with a head on the head!

              justice in life is a rare thing; Conjuncturists-careerists and who have received positions by inheritance, have enjoyed all the advantages of their position. Taxpayers pay for their decisions
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 4 December 2019 09: 07
                +3
                Not a competent dreamer, with a position ??? This is a CHIEF who has his own opinion, around whom one has to lead such "round dances", God forbid, to run into such a thing! This is not so rare in life.
          2. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 4 December 2019 09: 31
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            In disputes with friends who claimed that everything should be tried in this life, I usually advised starting with my own feces.

            Here is the argument, but what, cheap and fast!
          3. aakvit
            aakvit 6 December 2019 10: 28
            +2
            Not all obvious facts are correct! Remember: "iron ships cannot sail ..." But they don’t sink!
            Therefore, the trial and error method has not been canceled. Especially with, as you said, innovative approaches and new developments, and even based on new scientific (technological, ...) principles. hi Immediately, everything cannot become right, a break-in is necessary! request
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 4 December 2019 09: 04
      +3
      It is possible to create a masterpiece only within the framework of a harmonious, and most importantly correct, concept of fleet development. From general to specific, and not otherwise. It is not possible to build a fleet from a beautiful, but variegated ship composition. Continuing with the language of cards, the ace is good, but without a mother it is 11 points in the opponent's whists ("1000"), the same is ten without a jack. Putin misses, perhaps, this is the only positive strategy for the swindlers with pistols at the table.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 4 December 2019 09: 12
        0
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Putin is miserable, perhaps this is the only positive strategy with rogues with guns sitting at the table.

        GDP has already said that the fleet should develop harmoniously, i.e. right! Not the fact that we will see this ... age however, I wish the descendants to see what a strong POWER's fleet should be like!
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 4 December 2019 10: 48
          +8
          Eternal faith in the king ... Unfortunately, I am familiar with some naval decision-makers - dull grayness! .... and ignorance. But looking back, I understand that only war can advance talented people to leading positions. It has always been like this in Russia. And it will always be so.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 4 December 2019 11: 00
            0
            Quote: pmkemcity
            Eternal faith in the king ...

            Are you serious??? Are you reading my mind right?
            Quote: pmkemcity
            But looking back, I understand that only war can advance talented people to leading positions.

            It’s direct, it’s just the only way and no other way?
            Quote: pmkemcity
            It has always been like this in Russia. And it will always be so.

            And you subscribe to this and give a tooth?
            1. pmkemcity
              pmkemcity 4 December 2019 19: 07
              +2
              ... Tomorrow, not everyone can watch. Rather, not only everyone can watch, few can do it. And, if you rephrase the classic, then yesterday not everyone can peep, or rather everyone can peek, but only a few can see something. Teach history and the truth will be revealed to you, although they say that not all truth is truth. My signature is at the top, and about teeth - Μολὼν λαβέ.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 4 December 2019 19: 13
                0
                Clearly, enlightened - inspired .... then by, chur me.
  10. 7,62x54
    7,62x54 4 December 2019 07: 31
    +3
    Everyone imagines himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side
  11. sergo1914
    sergo1914 4 December 2019 08: 11
    +3
    One question remains. Why is the author still not the commander in chief of the fleet of all Russia?
  12. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 4 December 2019 08: 22
    +2
    Compared with the American Tarava, its peer, TAKR Kiev, seems an undoubted triumph

    And what, excuse me, is there a comparison? The purpose is different, but the parameters of their need are the same.
  13. Octopus
    Octopus 4 December 2019 08: 23
    +9
    Kaptsov such Kaptsov.

    1. Alaska. The idea of ​​a small LC / LKR / super cruiser was by the end of the 30s. One way or another, all the tops had something similar (English and Japanese LKR, Italian grandfathers under speed, Charles / Gnei, Dunkirk). The Americans had a failure in this regard, so Alaska was urgently needed. Another issue is that the project was unsuccessful, and managed late, came under Iowa.

    2. UDC. The author is simply not the subject of American rattles. Yes, the price should raise questions, but the very need for these ships for ILC doubtless.

    3.TAKR. It's hard to say something, thanks comrade. Ustinov for our happy childhood.

    4. Zumvolt. Freaks of wealthy people. What bad things can be said about him: when he finally turned into a technology demonstrator, it was worth cramming even more bows, but rewriting into an experimental ship. In this case, he would be quite in place.

    5.LKS. This is an openly wrecking project in which Americans were secretly consulted by the late Mikhail Vasilyevich Egorov, a hero of labor. In particular, it was he who prompted the Americans to accept the ships of two projects at the same time in the fleet, none of which can carry out tasks of the Perry type, which they should replace. Savings on matches (the trimaran was out of order, because steel water cannons were attached directly to the aluminum hull to save weight and money), the reception of ships for which there was no planned armament, all in the traditions of the late USSR. And the price, of course, is the traditional American crazy price.

    6. Squadron submarines. The author mentions two of them, but they were also very unsuccessful among the British. Bad idea, but again more or less universal.

    7. Worcester. The idea to create 6 "Atlanta was unsuccessfully implemented, but basically it was not completely insane. In the first post-war years, the Americans did not install anything in the air defense, including the LK. The idea of ​​missile air defense was not immediately accepted by them.

    8. Ф125. The only thing that raises questions there is price. The idea itself is very good, if the Germans really manage to implement KOH 0.6 for NK - they will simply be in the ladies.
    1. Avior
      Avior 4 December 2019 10: 12
      +1
      The problem of the zamvolt is that they did not bring it to mind, in particular, they did not develop missiles for new cells of MK 57
      Well, two huge guns are something for a modern ship
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 4 December 2019 11: 58
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        The problem is that they’re not brought to mind

        From a certain moment, they began to improve for the sake of improvement. And this is not a problem in itself, they can afford. Just a test ship is mistakenly issued as a combat ship.
        Quote: Avior
        two huge guns is something for a modern ship

        The idea of ​​abandoning sea wagons in favor of the usual 155 mm is correct, but at some point it was reduced to absurdity.
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 December 2019 13: 02
          +1
          Like a missile defense ship, prowl is much better than Arly Burke.
          It is necessary to make a cm-3 version for MK57 cells, it will have much better characteristics due to the fact that the new cell is noticeably larger than MK41.
          and they are trying to adapt it at least somewhere.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 4 December 2019 13: 24
            +1
            The problem is that the missile defense radar on it is incompatible with the air defense radar :)
            1. Avior
              Avior 4 December 2019 16: 37
              0
              On which of them?
              On let them on project 2
              1. 5-9
                5-9 5 December 2019 07: 16
                0
                On Zamvolte of course, according to project 2, but in life, electromagnetic incompatibility and the possibility of missile defense with SM-3 were cut off
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Avior
                  Avior 5 December 2019 10: 12
                  0
                  Ford has exactly the same DBR radar
                  No compatibility issues
                  1. 5-9
                    5-9 5 December 2019 10: 38
                    0
                    At Ford? Radar missile defense ?????
                    On Burke, too, but on Zumvolt - there is ...
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 5 December 2019 11: 06
                      0
                      Ford has exactly the same radar that was planned for Zamvolt
                      Tested, works
                      https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBR
      2. arkadiyssk
        arkadiyssk 4 December 2019 12: 22
        -1
        Zumvolt's problem is that the enemy was weak and unable to build a comparable fleet. As a result, such a fancy ship turned out to be redundant. Half of the radars and weapons were removed from it and the series was cut. That's exactly the same as with the Sivulf submarines, instead of which they began to build cheap Virginia. It would not hurt us - Zumwalt’s failure is the fault of Russia, not America.
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 December 2019 13: 02
          0
          as a missile defense ship it would be in demand now
        2. 5-9
          5-9 4 December 2019 13: 26
          +2
          Yeah, and he became weaker than Burke, with 1,5 times more and 3 times more expensive .... Tricky plan!
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 December 2019 11: 32
      +1
      Cruising tanks is also a bad idea and also common, like multi-tower. From the prevalence of less stupid did not.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 4 December 2019 12: 03
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        Cruising tanks is also a bad idea and also common, like multi-tower

        Both are the right decision. Multi-tower before the spread of VET. Cruising tank until the end of the 40s (the first universal tank - T-44 and Centurion, to some extent Panther). So I don’t know who is dumb in this situation.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 4 December 2019 12: 24
          +1
          Did you get a lot of BT? By the way, the BT speed in the column did not differ from that for the T-26, but it was 4 times more powerful than the engine. The multi-tower is completely absurd due to the heavy weight of even a tank with bulletproof armor, and weight is always a problem. Even to tow, if that, it is desirable to easier thanchek. In this case, the commander is physically unable to cope with the management of all these firing points at once. Two lighter tanks will be much more efficient and much less problematic.

          Moreover, already in Spain bulletproof booking has shown its complete unsuitability. Strictly speaking, 15 mm will not even protect from a 12.7 mm machine gun, even by the end of the PMV there were no problems with the penetration of tanks.
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 4 December 2019 13: 16
            +1
            Quote: EvilLion
            Did you get a lot of BT?

            This conversation does not make sense. There is the idea of ​​a cruising tank, there is its concrete implementation, there is a stupid command.
            Quote: EvilLion
            The multi-tower is completely absurd

            For a long time, the idea of ​​a tracked bunker of circular defense was considered quite adequate. Over time, yes, they refused. But pay attention to the number and location of machine guns on the IS-7.

            What has shown there that is not - the tenth matter. In the 30s and early 40s, it was not possible to provide the tank with armor and mobility at the same time. Either a vehicle for raids on the rear, that is, a cavalry tank, it is also cruising, or for working with infantry. If combined - one or both tasks disappear.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 4 December 2019 14: 38
              0
              With any command of the T-34, or KV-1 was for the enemy a much bigger problem. The IS-7 didn’t go into series at all, and there were only 2 machine guns left in the tanks. No tank of the 30s would just go to the rear, there wouldn’t be enough fuel, you just can’t imagine what a tank formation is for a deep breakthrough. As for the armor, the cast structures were always available, and the BT had an engine of up to 400 liters. from. it is more than Pz-IV. Not to mention the T-28, which weighed 25 tons and had a 450-liter engine. from. Now imagine that such an aggregate in 1933 was made without two ridiculous bullet-turrets, a gun turret of a lower height, less body length. The Red Army in 1933 would already have something comparable to the T-34. Well, 37 mm anti-tank guns were from the very beginning of the 30s, not to mention actually modern anti-material rifles with a caliber of 20 mm or more. One could also wonder what the tank would do with it, and what it would do with the tank.

              At Khalkhin-Gol, BT tanks showed an extremely high fire hazard (Zhukov doesn’t make such a conclusion about T-26) and suffered heavy guns like the ones that the Germans, after 2 years, meeting with the T-34, will be the mother of the most selected German mats.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 4 December 2019 14: 55
                0
                Gasoline "Shermans" in the US Army burned no worse than our BT!
                Any tank burns and explodes! It all depends on the quality of its use and opposing enemy forces!
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 4 December 2019 14: 58
                  0
                  Here are just some of the tanks light up more often and flare up faster. I repeat once again, Zhukov expressed the opinion about the fire hazard of BT in the official report, he says nothing of the kind with respect to the T-26.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 4 December 2019 15: 14
                    +2
                    And there could be no other! Tanks like BT and armored vehicles BA6 / 10 carried all the load in those battles!
                    As of February 1, 1939, the 57th Special Corps had only 33 T-26, 18 HT-26 and six tractors based on the T-26. "Betašek", for comparison, there were 219 units. The situation has changed little in the future. So, on July 20, 1939, in the units of the 1st Army Group there were 10 KhT-26 tanks (in the 11th tank brigade) and 14 T-26 (in the 82nd rifle division). By the August battles, the number of "twenty-six", mainly chemical, slightly increased, but still they amounted to a relatively small percentage of the total number of tanks participating in the battles. Nevertheless, they were used quite intensively.

                    Yes, one of the T-26 withstood 5 hits and returned to SPAM under its own power! During the battles for Krasny Bor, the T-26 tank of junior lieutenant Yakovlev had 9 holes! But the car left the battle under its own power!
                    But these cases do not claim that the T-26 alone could break through a saturated anti-aircraft defense system without infantry, artillery and air cover!
              2. Octopus
                Octopus 4 December 2019 20: 58
                0
                Quote: EvilLion
                With any command of the T-34, or KV-1 was for the enemy a much bigger problem

                Serviceable. An attempt in the case of the T-34 to combine armor, gun and mobility led to what is known for the 41st year.
                Quote: EvilLion
                In the rear, no tank of the 30s simply will not go

                And then 38 (t) is not a tank of the 30s.
                Quote: EvilLion
                Germans in 2 years, meeting with the T-34, will be the mother of the most selected German mats

                Near Moscow.

                You, I look, do not understand. Chaffee, probably the most agile tank of war, has only 12 hp. per ton. The T-34-76 has almost 19 hp. But Chuffy's his bhp implements, but the T-34 - no. Quickly moving a heavy tracked vehicle is a separate task, its solution took many years. In the case of the USSR - up to T-54obr49, in the case of the Americans - up to M46.

                Armored forces - it was originally armored cavalry. They were approached by 38 (t) and did not fit either KV or T-34 of the 41st year with their reliability, resource and mobility, and in terms of speed, and above all in terms of hours (minutes) of progress before repair / adjustment / overheating of bonds etc.
          2. hohol95
            hohol95 4 December 2019 13: 39
            0
            Did you get a lot of BT?

            The question is the number of crashed enemy equipment or the time of use in combat units?
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 4 December 2019 14: 40
              0
              About the results of this war, and how much better they were than the same T-26. The correct answer is not much.
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 4 December 2019 14: 49
                0
                Controversial statement! If you take all the lost cars and destroyed them - the result will not be in favor of the BT and T-26! But if you understand more specifically and take the bright moments of their application! The picture will not be so gray and joyless!
                The bulk of the tanks was lost for technical reasons or simply abandoned due to lack of fuel! Naturally, we will not forget about the illiterate use of tank formations!
                But it is not worth considering the cars themselves "dull G ..."
                People are fighting.
                1. EvilLion
                  EvilLion 4 December 2019 15: 14
                  0
                  Look above, then I am writing about the T-28, and what the Red Army could have already in 1933. It makes no sense to count how many enemy equipment were destroyed by tanks of 41, when they collided with German infantry, it is obvious that three of ours in a tank, even a light one, could take with them much more Germans than three of ours with three lines. But if you're talking about those. the reasons, well, so Prudnikova said very specifically about this, after studying the documents: "With 2% availability of spare parts for armored forces, we do not have!" Here you can not even go over to the command, especially since it received all this economy from all the Tukhachevskys. I also consider him guilty of the creation of the T-28 and T-35. And you have no questions about what if the T-26 was crawling on a 100 hp motor. from. then the BT had a capacity of up to 400 liters. from. however, this did not give him any significant superiority in mobility, why then is it necessary? At the same time, a motor of 300-400 liters. from. obviously, it consumes engine hours and fuel much faster than an engine for a hundred. That is, it seems like more spare parts are needed. A tank, when the observation organ is a viewing slot, can drive fast only if it knows for sure that it is not in danger, that is, in staged shows, the mechanic will open the hatch in general and with a lever back and forth 50 km / h across the field. Yes, it inspires from the outside.

                  And in battle 15 km / h will be.
                  1. hohol95
                    hohol95 4 December 2019 15: 18
                    +2
                    I propose to stop the debate about tanks in the commentary on the article about the ships!
                    If you want to discuss armored vehicles, write to your personal page! hi
                    1. pmkemcity
                      pmkemcity 5 December 2019 08: 58
                      0
                      Let me summarize. In the 50s, there was also a discussion about the mobility of the tank - "should the tank be on the battlefield." So, experts came to the conclusion that the heavy and well-protected "Centurion" showed incomparably higher mobility on the battlefield than the light, but high-speed AMX. About the same we came up with our home-grown mind during the war - light tanks were quickly ousted from the reconnaissance units of tank forces, because they did not show any advantages in mobility, and were not able to conduct firefights.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 December 2019 11: 57
      +3
      Quote: Octopus
      2. UDC. The author is simply not in the subject of American rattles. Yes, the price should raise questions, but the very need for these ships for the ILC is undeniable.

      PMSM, the main plus of UDC - is that the marines were able to use its aviation already at the first stage of the landing. Yes, "Harrier" is not a gift, but it's his own, Marine. And not a naval one with AB, which is here today, and tomorrow everything, left to carry out other tasks.
      Since the time of Guadalcanal, the Marine Corps hasn’t particularly hoped for interaction with the fleet (there were ships in the evening and no longer in the morning, and along with them transports with supplies were wound up). smile
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 4 December 2019 13: 09
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Since the time of Guadalcanal, the Marine Corps hasn’t particularly hoped for interaction with the fleet.

        Even worse. The ILC is subordinate to the President, the Navy to Congress. Theoretically, they should not fight one without the other, but everything happens in life. So the ILC is inclined to consider itself a separate army.
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 4 December 2019 19: 39
          +4
          "The ILC is subordinate to the President, the Navy - to Congress."
          hi IMHO.
          The "vertical of command" there is a little different, but the essence is this: the use of the army and the navy (war) requires the consent of the legislators (who "gather the army and equip the navy", this is ideally, and with the exception of "direct and obvious threat"; in practice "consultations").
          The ILC, as “not the army and the navy,” can receive instructions bypassing legislators, who, if they disagree, have leverage: from impeachment to “we won’t give money” (this is not counting the practice of approval for senior military positions through legislators).
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 4 December 2019 20: 33
            +1
            Quote: Wildcat
            There the "vertical of command" is slightly different, but the essence is

            Thank you, I did not paint it, so as not to lie to the details. The idea is simple, the ILC may be at war alone, not only because the sailors refueling reactor reboot. The ILC purely in its status should be able to fight alone, without fleet aircraft carriers and even the Air Force.
    4. Private-K
      Private-K 4 December 2019 14: 07
      0
      the very need for these ships [Tarava] for the ILC is undeniable

      The Marine Corps wants for the MDO: a) helicopter landing and support; b) a docking chamber for transporting small DKA across the sea-ocean. Where is the obligation to combine into one ship? Well, you see, it’s not biased: it is harnessing a horse, an eagle and a trembling doe to one cart.

      Quote: Octopus
      8. Ф125. The only thing that raises questions there is price. The idea itself is very good, if the Germans really manage to implement KOH 0.6 for NK - they will simply be in the ladies.

      Expand the thesis - what do you see good or interesting in this project?
      Europeans managed not to be able to put PU NURSES on the vessel ... belay and 155 mm gun mount. The ship, so large and spacious, does not have a medium-range air defense system. fool almost used shells with long-obsolete RPC Harpoon are installed on the ship. request
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 4 December 2019 18: 27
        +1
        Quote: Private-K
        Well, you see, it’s not biased: it is harnessing a horse, an eagle and a trembling doe to one cart.

        From the point of view of iron, it could have been better. I myself am surprised at the price of UDC America. But from the point of view of the leadership of the ILC, this option seemed more correct. Perhaps one big ship is easier to push through Congress, they know better.

        In any case, if you leave the notorious taxpayers out of the brackets, the UDC is by far the strongest in its class.

        Quote: Private-K
        Europeans managed not to be able to put PU NURSES on the vessel ...

        The Germans are doing exactly what they need, their corvettes, including for import, are better armed than this frigate. The composition of the armament does not interest me now, it will be necessary - they will add, there is a lot of space. I’m interested in how, in principle, they can realize what they want. Normal aircraft carrier KOH - 0.2, EMNIP, three times less.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 5 December 2019 17: 24
        +1
        Quote: Private-K
        The Marine Corps wants for the MDO: a) helicopter landing and support; b) a docking chamber for transporting small DKA across the sea-ocean.

        The Marines want aircraft support for the landing. Moreover, his own, and not the naval, which can go down at the most inopportune moment.
        In WWII, the Marines eventually knocked out AVEs for their squadrons, which were exclusively engaged in supporting the landing. But with the transition to jet engines, which required large decks, the Marines again fell into complete "aviation" dependence on the fleet. Then KVVP appeared - and AVE reincarnated in a new form. True, he grew larger than "Essex". smile But only because some set out to place the battalion on one ship and ensure its landing - instead of dragging a convoy from several types of ships: DVKD, DTRD, DVN.
  14. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 4 December 2019 08: 34
    +8
    Well, the Americans trampled on. Waiting for an article about Karakurt, Ivan Rogov and other domestic patrol shells
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 December 2019 12: 25
      0
      They didn't eat as much as one "Kiev".
    2. Private-K
      Private-K 4 December 2019 14: 09
      +1
      Yes, not to mention Rhinos is the omission of the author of the article.
  15. BAI
    BAI 4 December 2019 08: 52
    +3
    In 13, the author cites the following quote: "
    There are three useless things in the world: the Cheops pyramid, the Great Wall of China and the battleship Yamato ...
    ".
    But there, the author argued that Yamato is one of the best.
  16. Basarev
    Basarev 4 December 2019 09: 16
    0
    Rather than laugh at the western quirks, our zoo of small ships would remember better. One is more ridiculous than the other.
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 4 December 2019 11: 27
      +2
      If we are talking about small corvettes (MRK, MAK, RK). Then we have now
      - Buyan and Buyan-M with low seaworthiness, but the former fully meet the tasks of the Caspian, and the latter carry calibers.
      - Karakurt, what do you not like about them? Missile boats were built in the USSR, and karakurt in our country. They can be built here and now, there are many, and they themselves can quite solve certain problems.
      - 22160 is a completely suitable ship for long-range patrol, its mission is reconnaissance and patrolling, while it is reliable and provides good living conditions.
      Yes, the zoo, but just here the evolutionary zoo. From Buyans to Karakurt, 22160 - for special non-combat missions.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 4 December 2019 12: 49
        -3
        Ideally, I see one small ship. A single project for all fleets. And not like ours - the darkness of feeble small-scale gold ships. I foresee that in the future there will be a merger of classes - all patrolmen, watchmen, corvettes and frigates will merge into one class, which I call simply a small ship. Similarly, anti-submariners, destroyers and cruisers will merge into the middle ship, the precedents were already in the person of Grozny - the firepower of the cruiser in the destroyer hull. And finally, the largest ships - UDC and aircraft carriers - likewise merge into a single large ship, which is also the core ship. A bunch of classes are not needed, only three are needed. Similar processes will go in the land technology - armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles will merge, for example.
        1. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 4 December 2019 12: 53
          0
          I agree. But we have what we have. We have never had real large-scale construction, as in the USA or China. There are also reasons for this - the weakness of the shipbuilding industry and a certain backwardness. We cannot lay ten frigates on a single project - they will quickly become obsolete. And to do the modern - we have been bringing armaments, problems with the propulsion system, and the power of the shipyards for a long time ...
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 4 December 2019 12: 51
        +2
        Quote: 30hgsa
        - 22160 - quite a suitable ship for long-range patrol, its task is reconnaissance and patrolling

        His tasks, repeatedly voiced by representatives of the planner, manufacturer and navy ranks, are patrolling the economy zone and the territory, fighting against poaching and piracy, and searching ships. 22160 - this is the usual FSB-shny PSKR, unknown winds entered in the Navy.
        What distant patrol or reconnaissance can we talk about if the ship:
        - There is no full-fledged GAS - it has an anti-sabotage complex that works only at short ranges.
        - There is no air defense, except for the palliative in the form of MANPADS. And it won’t be - the place of the air defense air defense module is occupied by residential and domestic premises, and there’s nowhere to put the radar. How to send a ship without air defense to a distant watch?
        1. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 17
          -1
          Why does he need air defense? From whom? This is a peacetime ship, designed to hang out in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Aden and save the resource of large ships, which we build a little because we can’t build a lot (and they don’t solve the money here - there are no capacities, problems with power plants). Well, put air defense, what air defense can you put on rank 3? What enemy? At rank 3, air defense is effectively impossible in principle. And to drive 1 rank - here they drove Chabanenko, 5 years in repair, so what?

          Again. The main task 22160 is to replace ships of rank 1-2, which we cannot build in large numbers and which each counts in solving peacetime tasks - observation, presence, limited intelligence, shipping protection, saved. operations. That is why they made 22160 with autonomy greater than that of 23350. In fact, 22160, we ensure that 1-2 ranks are kept in combat, their resources are not consumed, as was Chabanenko, but remains in case of a mess of varying degrees of intensity.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 4 December 2019 15: 43
            +2
            Quote: 30hgsa
            Why does he need air defense? From whom? This is a peacetime ship designed to hang out in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Aden during the peace period and save the resource of large ships

            Well, you want to send him to reconnaissance and patrol?
            Quote: 30hgsa
            - 22160 - quite a suitable ship for long-range patrol, its task is reconnaissance and patrolling

            Yeah - like LCS. And 22160 will have the same problems - weapons and protection do not correspond to the level of threats. Alas, compared with the 90s, the situation has changed dramatically - now even off the coast of third world countries you can get on board RCC.
            Quote: 30hgsa
            The main task 22160 is to replace ships of rank 1-2, which we cannot build in large numbers and which each counts in solving peacetime tasks - observation, presence, limited intelligence, shipping protection, saved. operations.

            Good and necessary tasks. And most importantly, they are extremely urgent for the fleet, which has nothing to provide for the release of the SSBN, in which the special forces and mine-sweeping forces died. But we are not up to it - the main thing is to indicate the presence in the Gulf of Aden.
            Moreover, the OVR died precisely because of 22160 - for Chirkov ordered a "patrol ship" instead of the OVR corvette.
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 4 December 2019 15: 54
              -1
              The SSBN is generally a phantom, if they suddenly shoot (God forbid) they will, then from the pier. In fact, an expensive but useless means in the conditions of the dominance of NATO fleets at sea, with which no OVR can cope. Our economy is not the one to build a fleet that will ensure the effectiveness of the SSBNs at sea. There are no corvettes needed. Here we need the mass construction of destroyers and the solution of the task of covering the airborne deployment of the SSBN. And in 20 years we have not built a single ship of the 1st rank above the surface. We have no way to build rank 1 surface ships now.

              At the same time, from the point of view of pure logic, it’s time for all the SSBNs to be scrapped and build as many PGKR and mines. But here it is, from the point of view of the psychology of containment, different delivery methods are needed, therefore, SSBNs are needed, but they are not the basis of the containment forces, they were never and never will be.

              Minesweepers? And what are you going to trawl? Oh, are you going to trawl possible mines in case of a possible war? But nothing that the total dominance of NATO aviation in the same Baltic your minesweepers will multiply by zero immediately? Or do you have an economy capable of building your fighters so much that they can cover minesweepers?

              All discussions on minesweepers, the cover of the SSBNs have long been in the category of applied psychiatry, since Russia, by virtue of its economy, is five times weaker than the United States and ten times weaker than NATO CAN'T build a fleet comparable to NATO. So if you approach the tasks wisely, you should abandon all Napoleonic plans for the sweeping of the Baltic and focus on what we can, just on the presence in Aden and eastern Middle-earth. There is a war going on, if anything, in which we have our own interests and the course of which we influence.

              PS: corvettes were not hacked because they decided to build patrolmen and did not have enough money, there are money and capacities for rank 3. The combat value of those corvettes, like MRCs, in the big war is zero. And for today's tasks they are not suitable, unlike patrolmen. Therefore, there is no sense in building them. And the patrolmen are needed to keep the ranks 1-2, and at the same time not to lock themselves in their ports, but to ensure their presence where there are interests.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 4 December 2019 20: 33
                0
                Quote: 30hgsa
                Minesweepers? And what are you going to trawl? Oh, are you going to trawl possible mines in case of a possible war? But nothing that the total dominance of NATO aviation in the same Baltic your minesweepers will multiply by zero immediately?

                And I'm not talking about the Baltic. I'm talking about the same SSBNs, for the removal of which from the base are urgently needed TSC.
                Otherwise, on the eve of D-Day, self-transporting mines will creep right into the fairway, and combat "captors" will be deployed next to the base - and that's it, the exit is closed.
                Quote: 30hgsa
                PS: corvettes were not hacked because they decided to build patrolmen and did not have enough money, there are money and capacities for rank 3.

                Glavkomat does not see prospects in the creation of ships, previously designated as "Corvette IAD". One of the main tasks of the OVR is to ensure the protection and defense of the naval forces in the areas of naval bases and in the adjacent territories. This task is now carried out by onshore observation means, stationary hydroacoustic stations and coastal missile-artillery troops, armed with anti-ship missiles of different ranges, as well as anti-submarine and strike aircraft.
                Having abandoned the corvette, the Navy turned to the idea of ​​creating patrol ships - less armed, but with greater autonomy and versatility, capable, among other things, of going on long voyages. The development of the patrol ship project will be carried out by OJSC "Severnoye Design Bureau
                © Navy Commander Chirkov
                And since in 2014 there was no forecast of a new base aircraft for anti-submarine aviation in the country (it is still absent), the only means of the near anti-aircraft defense was and is the OVR corvette. Work on which the commander-in-chief closed.
                Quote: 30hgsa
                The combat value of those corvettes, like MRCs, in the big war is zero.

                In a major war, only ICBMs and SLBMs have combat value. And 40% of strategic UBCs in our country are the fleet.
                And the combat value of corvettes is to prevent a big war. Which is provided with a guaranteed retaliatory strike, inflicted by stealth deployed SSBNs. And the OVR corvettes are just one of those who provide this deployment.
          2. karabass
            karabass 4 December 2019 16: 00
            0
            I heard a long time ago from sailors that in the 90s, captains of strategic submarines were given an order if they found a reason not to go to sea on a DB, so the admirals saved the nuclear submarine’s life to avoid decommissioning
      3. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 05
        +1
        With the money that all this scrap got, it would be possible to build twenty full-fledged corvettes like about 20385, with calibers, hulls, torpedoes, PLUR and a helicopter on board. Fully universal full-fledged ships that could perform a variety of tasks, and not hide off the coast in anticipation of a command to launch missiles
        1. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 20
          -1
          Are you going to build 20385 on Zelenodolsky Shipyard? :)) Can you tell me how?
          If the shipbuilding program is drowned in money - there are no capacities, there is no power plant, no diesel engines.
          And yes, in 20385 autonomy is 15 days in 22160 - 60 days. So without building 22160 you have to drive to Aden Gorshkovs and ditch them as they killed Chabanenko to solve peacetime problems. Oh yes, I forgot, you think that our presence is not needed there :) Because you believe that they are present where there is a tanker war between Iran and the United States with Britain only to fight pirates :)
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 26
            +4
            Are you going to build 20385 on Zelenodolsky Shipyard? :)) Can you tell me how?
            If the shipbuilding program is drowned in money - there are no capacities, there is no power plant, no diesel engines.


            I was going to build them in NE, Amber, NEA and everywhere except Zelenodolsk.

            And I will add - the Zelendolsky Design Bureau had and has an ace up its sleeve - 1166X, I will not disclose the last digit, but this is a ship that basically replaces 20385 and which can be built there. If you were even a little in the subject, you would know about it.

            And yes, in 20385 autonomy is 15 days in 22160 - 60 days.


            on water and food. AND? 20380 normally went to the Red Sea, without any complaints. But if a real war happened, these ships would also be useful, unlike the troughs of 22160.

            And yes, I forgot to add, not a single trough 22160 has yet gone to the Gulf of Aden, is it strange?

            Oh yes, I forgot, you think that our presence is not needed there :) Because you believe that they are present where there is a tanker war between Iran and the United States with Britain only to fight pirates :)


            Zaycheg, and you have the power to formulate what goals we can achieve, I am present where the tankers are at war with the Amers and Persians? (which by the way was not when the trough 22160 was laid)?
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 43
              -2
              And yes, I forgot to add, not a single trough 22160 has yet gone to the Gulf of Aden, is it strange?

              Yes, you are a genius :) The first ship of project 22160 was accepted into the fleet in December 2018 and so far it only traveled to the Black Sea Fleet :) It is so strange that the new ship was not sent immediately on a long voyage, but was sent, for example, to monitor the American -Ukrainian exercises in the Black Sea Fleet :)

              By the way, in case of war ... well, tell me how in a war with the same US or NATO, an extra dozen RTOs built instead of 22160 will help us? :) Parry threat from one destroyer Arly Burke? :))) That's unlikely, by the number of cells it is comparable and by the total displacement, too, only for the rest of the performance characteristics even 10 RTOs are just 10 RTOs.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 49
                +2
                Yes, you are a genius :) The first ship of project 22160 was accepted into the fleet in December 2018 and so far it only traveled to the Black Sea Fleet :)


                No, he did not go only along the Black Sea, you are again wrong.

                follow the American-Ukrainian exercises in the Black Sea Fleet :)


                Tracking means a lot of things that the trough can not do. Tracking led RZK. The trough was put to the RZK in order to at least go out to sea.

                In general, study the Soviet practice of tracking. Look at what ships were used in them and think about why they are like that, and not some others.
              2. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 50
                +3
                By the way, in case of war ... well, tell me how in a war with the same US or NATO an extra dozen RTOs will help us


                RTOs are just as stupid. Not as wild as 22160, but stupid.
                1. 30hgsa
                  30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 52
                  -2
                  Yeah. Wildly stupid, having the capacity to build a limited number of ships of rank 2 (and they do not build the 1st surface ones at all) save the existing and drive on the dubious missions ships of rank 3, which can be built a lot, but which in the combat version do not solve much and therefore do a limited series this 3 ranks just for autonomy and multifunctionality - for those very dubious missions :)
    2. Private-K
      Private-K 4 December 2019 14: 11
      +1
      Even a whole zoo from a mosquito fleet is much cheaper and less harmful than an erroneous megaproject of an ocean megacity. Moreover, Russian modern mosquitoes are rather biting and in any case will be useful.
  17. nikolai.kolya
    nikolai.kolya 4 December 2019 09: 41
    +2
    interesting, but the dock lying at the bottom to useless can be attributed ....?
    laughing
  18. Avior
    Avior 4 December 2019 10: 09
    +3
    UDC, of ​​course, you need to cross out, the whole world is building, Kaptsov alone is against, the comparison of UDC with the cruiser looks especially epic
    Compared with the American Tarava, its peer, TAKR Kiev, seems an unquestionable triumph.

    But the project 1143 just can be entered in its entirety, the attempt to cross the snake with the hedgehog obviously went the wrong way
  19. Operator
    Operator 4 December 2019 10: 49
    +2
    Any NK in the sea - like naked in the bath.

    Therefore, only submarines / LA plus the minimum number of NK of the near sea zone with a displacement of 1 thousand tons (coast guard) and the far sea zone with a displacement of 4 thousand tons (escort forces).
  20. A_2010
    A_2010 4 December 2019 11: 05
    0
    Well, I’d think three times before inserting Zumvolt here. He can still show himself. They will correct children's illnesses and it will already be visible there that yes how, it may even become the base of a completely new ship)
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 4 December 2019 12: 28
      0
      Well, after about five years, the Americans will start building something to replace the Tikanderogs and it is quite possible that the revised Zumwalt will be in the form of the future CG (X). It’s awkward, they laughed, laughed, but it won’t, but how ...
  21. mik193
    mik193 4 December 2019 11: 08
    -1
    Well, as for the 1143 project, one can doubt the futility. We remove the really poor Yak-38, plant anti-submarine helicopters, get a pretty decent anti-submarine cruiser to replace the project 1123. By the way, initially "Kiev" was classified as an anti-submarine cruiser, and only then as a TAKR. And this is without taking into account the possible replacement of the Yak-38 in the air wing with the Yak-141, which did not take place due to the collapse.
    Our newly invented patrol ships, pr. 22160, can be considered the most useless.
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 4 December 2019 11: 35
      +1
      Nichrome itself useless 22160.
      At one time, solving the reputational tasks of the presence in Aden, they killed the resource of GTU Chabanenko, now, in fact, the destroyer (BOD) is 8000 tons, and for our fleet almost new (commissioned in 1999) is under repair :)
      We made an inexpensive, reliable, autonomous, with good conditions for the crew, a patrol ship for solving long-range reconnaissance and patrolling tasks. "Anti-piracy". Which saves the resource of large ships, which we have few, and money, but it turns out to be "useless".
      1. mik193
        mik193 4 December 2019 11: 41
        0
        Type in the search engine here on the website "22160" and read about this masterpiece of shipbuilding. For example, here is https://topwar.ru/151455-chemodany-bez-ruchek-vmf-pokupaet-seriju-absoljutno-bespoleznyh-korablej.html.
        1. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 4 December 2019 11: 48
          0
          VO is the site of sofa analytics, which is ruled by a Kaptsov and timokhin ball of all stripes :)
          I do not advise you to trust their analytics - its level is lower than the plinth.
          Read more authoritative sources, there about 22160 completely different thoughts.
          1. mik193
            mik193 4 December 2019 11: 49
            0
            And who is the authoritative source?
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 4 December 2019 11: 54
              0
              It’s definitely not a generalist with narrow knowledge to which you refer there.
              After Timokhin tore his ass hair out on the topic that our strategic aviation is equipped with cruise missiles, and not bombs like the Americans’s B-2 ... everything became completely clear with him :) You trust the analytics of the person who writes about everything, from lasers milking the Tu-160 and promotes the idea that on the Tu-160 you need to hang atomic bombs so that after a nuclear war there is an opportunity to bomb a global airfield in Nebraska from where they can take out something :)

              Read, horrified:
              https://topwar.ru/164275-aviacionnye-sjas-pohozhe-my-koe-v-chem-oshibaemsja.html
              And tell me - you still have a desire to refer to Timokhin :)
              1. mik193
                mik193 4 December 2019 12: 10
                0
                Well, I do not pretend to global knowledge in aviation. I will try to explain about 22160.
                Well, firstly, the ship has a little displacement. In the conditions of the North and the Pacific Ocean, it seems to me that you need something at least 2500 tons.
                As a patrolman, he can and will do, but he cannot carry out long-range reconnaissance - there is nothing. In this case, there must be a HAS with the GPAA (or the possibility of its quick installation), radio and electronic intelligence equipment.
                If necessary, it cannot be converted into a warship - there is no place for self-defense air defense systems (MANPADS do not count), anti-submarine weapons. The deployment of an anti-ship missile system is declared only in theory.
                Well, if we talk about anti-piracy, then PMCs are simply arming ordinary trawlers and are not soaring.
                So do not exact, my opinion is that this project is the usual drank money.
                1. 30hgsa
                  30hgsa 4 December 2019 12: 19
                  +1
                  1. GAS is needed for PLO. This is not a PLO ship. This is not a war ship at all.

                  2. His task is patrolling, electronic and optical reconnaissance, rescue operations, and shipping protection. To do this, he has everything he needs - weapons, a helicopter, comfortable cabins, a reserve of autonomy.

                  3. As for seaworthiness and the ice class - this is how it solves problems in the middle-earth and close by. So 22160 is needed in order to ensure the presence of eyes and ears just in the Gulf of Aden. off the coast of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula - watch, listen, if anything - protect shipping. Why there? But because all the wars are now going on there. Middle East, if that. Syria, Yemen, Libya. Near Iran, Israel, Egypt - the zone of interest of our strategic sexual partners :)

                  4. About trawlers. And that there are helicopters on trawlers, are there helicopters? And there is and there is a hangar. How fast are trawlers? No way. In fact, yes, trawlers are being converted into reconnaissance "vessels." But this is ersatz. And here we have a ship for reconnaissance, saved. operation and protection of shipping from small threats of a special structure - which has everything you need, which can relatively quickly move to the desired area, where it is comfortable to serve sailors and marines.

                  5. About drank ... I repeat, we ditched a ship of rank 1 in fact spending its resource on these tasks. Chabanenko from new ships and for 5 years in repair. Is it really drank the construction of a series of 6 ships of rank 3, when the alternative is the destruction of real warships? 22160 at the same time is not built to the detriment of large ships - you cannot build large ships on the capacities at which it is built. Those. loaded what can be loaded and this is exactly what is optimal - in order to preserve more powerful ships in the military at capacities that are not able to build 1-2 ranks, build 3 ranks to solve non-combat tasks, so as not to waste a bit of numerical strength of 1-2 ranks.
                  1. mik193
                    mik193 4 December 2019 12: 30
                    0
                    That is, sonar reconnaissance is not needed?
                    Such a reconnaissance can be carried out by any ship and even a ship with a small retrofit.
                    Well a helicopter, yes. well. Again, a sufficiently large vessel can be converted to a helicopter carrier.
                    Yes, you need a cheap enough ship to patrol, but which can become combat after not very large retrofitting. Due to limited resources, we cannot build non-adapted warships
                    for warfare.
                    And 22160 in this respect is simply incomplete.
                    1. 30hgsa
                      30hgsa 4 December 2019 12: 31
                      -1
                      GAS is actually there.
                      1. mik193
                        mik193 4 December 2019 12: 36
                        0
                        Well, this is a sickly GUS, short range. I wrote about the GAS with a flexible extended towed antenna for early detection of submarines. There were rumors that the "Minotaur" would be stuck there, but it was all over with rumors.
                      2. 30hgsa
                        30hgsa 4 December 2019 12: 44
                        0
                        1. And this GUS is enough for his tasks. There is everything you need for his tasks. This is not a PLO ship. He is engaged in reconnaissance and patrolling.

                        2. As for the price - yes, that's a question. But this price includes an autonomy better than that of Gorshkov (60 days versus 30 days, 6000 miles versus 4500). Comfort for the crew on the long voyage. 25 knots (15 for a trawler). helicopter and hangar for him. Can you do this on a "cheap patrol" ship?

                        3. This is Zelenodolsky Shipyard - they did not build anything major there. So the construction work on it 22160 is not at the expense of other projects. And in addition, it saves the resource of other warships. Instead of 22160 it was possible to build karakurt or buoys probably, but they have limited combat capabilities, I would have to drive to Aden Gorshkov, and most importantly karakurt there is where to build more :)

                        Think for yourself - you have all the shipyards that can build krupnyak - trying to build it. There is a bunch of shipyards on which you can build a trifle, a trifle is built, but it has low autonomy and seaworthiness too. And now there is a REAL challenge - the presence in Middle-earth and Aden, where our interests and wars are. How to solve it? You can drive warships of rank 1-2 of which there are so few. You can convert trawlers and try to solve problems with them ... only their course is slow, and they all have ersatz. And it’s possible to make a normal patrol officer of a special building imprisoned specifically for patrol and reconnaissance, with a helicopter, blackjack ... and ... there is no and, women on the ship do not need :) On which it is comfortable to serve as sailors for marines in a hot climate, which is autonomous, which can do everything you really need to do.

                        When Timokhin writes about "a suitcase without a handle" ... you need to remember that 22160 is a ship for which there are real tasks in peacetime and which performs them bringing real benefits :) Intelligence is coming, shipping is protected, no one laughs at the fact that the Russians sail on trawlers :) And sailors and marines live in normal conditions, and do not steadfastly endure the conditions of military service :)
                      3. mik193
                        mik193 4 December 2019 12: 51
                        0
                        For reconnaissance, such a GAS is not applicable.
                        I did not set the price to blame for this project. I had in mind a cheaper ship than a class destroyer frigate. He simply raised the issue of reserving space for surveillance and weapon systems.

                        Well here is a poster from the exhibition what the ship should do. Something I doubt ...
                        It’s definitely not imprisoned for intelligence.
                        The text is poorly visible, now I will try to find it separately ...
                        Designed for patrolling the territorial waters, patrolling the 200-mile exclusive economic zone in open and closed seas, stopping smuggling and piracy, searching and assisting victims of maritime disasters, environmental monitoring of the environment in peacetime, guarding ships and vessels at the transition by sea, as well as naval bases and water areas with the aim of warning of an attack by various enemy forces and equipment - in wartime, as well as operations in her sea and ocean areas.
                        Well, how to protect the base and warn of an attack?
                      4. 30hgsa
                        30hgsa 4 December 2019 12: 57
                        -1
                        And what is not imprisoned then? He stands in Aden. It is a service and combat training. Listens to the broadcast. Observes with the help of radar and optically for the necessary objects. If necessary - quickly enough moves where necessary. It can save, it can drive pirates. Can take someone from the shore or land ashore. Maybe the flag to show the little things. And nothing more is needed from him in fact. And what intelligence equipment there is not written in the prospectus; it doesn’t eat much mass and displacement.
                      5. mik193
                        mik193 4 December 2019 13: 03
                        +1
                        Well, it should be equipped with specialized equipment, including normal hydroacoustics, and not the GAS mine detection and search for combat swimmers. In its current form, the ship was commissioned on the basis of the principle that there will be no war anyway.
                      6. 30hgsa
                        30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 07
                        0
                        It is put into operation on the basis of the principle of building a 1-2 rank, we can be very limited, let's drive to Aden the 3rd rank, which we can build in any quantities so as not to waste a 1-2 rank resource :) Well + made the habitability good.
                      7. mik193
                        mik193 4 December 2019 13: 21
                        0
                        And if there are no pirates, where to put this treasure? Perhaps to give back to frontier guards? I apologize, by the way I would like the promised link to authoritative sources about the need and usefulness of 22160.
                      8. 30hgsa
                        30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 22
                        0
                        Yes, where does it .... **** pirates? You do not need your ship in the tanker war zone of the USA with Iran off the coast of the war with SA Yemen or not? Those pirates never surrendered to anyone at all, the presence there to fight the pirates is an excuse long ago.
                      9. mik193
                        mik193 4 December 2019 13: 23
                        0
                        To do this, there are reconnaissance ships.
                      10. 30hgsa
                        30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 39
                        -1
                        Well, tell me, as part of the Black Sea Fleet, a reconnaissance ship that can solve the tasks of reconnaissance itself, protect shipping, and conduct rescue operations in that area.
                      11. mik193
                        mik193 5 December 2019 19: 55
                        -1
                        So, we will not agree. In its current form, 22160 is a dull shit. For improvements you need:
                        -increase in displacement to 2500-3000 tons. -increase in seaworthiness and expansion of the range of operation of a deck helicopter.
                        - expanding the capabilities of the helicopter basing from Ka-27 PS to Ka-27 submarines or even to attack helicopters (places for PLO weapons and search tools (RSAB)).
                        - installation of an infrasonic HAS with GPAA type imported AN / SQR-19 - long-range sonar reconnaissance.
                        - installation of systems RR and RTR - similar to a warship of the class frigate destroyer - radio and radio reconnaissance.
                        - reservation of space for SAM and ZAK self-defense.
                        - reservation of space for a complex of anti-ship missiles (if possible).
                        - installation of electronic warfare systems - similar to a warship of a frigate-destroyer class.
                        - for the functions of the OVR ship - if there is not enough space for the winged GAS, reserve a place for the lowered active-passive GAS and submarine destruction means (small-sized TA).
                        I think it will not be particularly expensive and the ship will come in handy.
                        And in its current form - only how to drive poachers from the PSKR.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 07
        -1
        Oddly enough, a supporter of patrol ships ... apparently some kind of infection.

        Just in case - Eric Prince's mercenaries killed the population of the coastal regions of Somalia, which provided the main personnel for the "pirates" back in 2015-2016.

        There are no pirates there and they have nowhere to come from. There is nothing to patrol, no need to attend.
        1. 30hgsa
          30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 10
          -2
          Rukalitsa ... and you thought that there are ships in Aden, next to Yemen, to drive the pirates exactly? :)))) And not because it is a strategically important site where the most vicious borsch from the showdown with the participation of the SA, USA, Israel, Iran are brewed? You better go tell me how with Tu-160 after the global nuclear war you are going to bomb aerodromes behind enemy lines, freely falling :) Specialist, what’s there.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 21
            0
            There is no longer such a presence as in 2008-2014 even close. You are simply not in the subject of how and what was there, so you skip here.

            Here is a photo for you, for example



            The Britons inspect the Scythian, in the background a ship. Why exactly this? To scare someone with a spill of fuel? No, just as a base for anti-piracy operations and anti-terror, it is more convenient than military.

            Three turntables, lots of space inside. Then the problem disappeared, and they no longer burn fuel, they sit at home. And we still have a bunch of useless ships.

            You better go tell me how with Tu-160 after the global nuclear war you are going to bomb aerodromes behind enemy lines, freely falling :)


            And you count the cash KR, estimate how much they are enough, and everything will sparkle with new colors. By the way, the bombs in our country were updated several years ago. They are in service, there are hundreds of them, and for YES, the problem is that, unlike the Americans, we just have them, but we are not working on combat use.

            Stop grimacing. And do not jerk on the topic of specialists and non-specialists - in any case, even between a specialist, even between a layman who has superficially delved into the problem, and you - an abyss of infinite dimensions.
            1. 30hgsa
              30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 40
              -2
              And I don’t pretend to be a specialist and I do not write articles of cosmic stupidity, or rather, it’s not me who is pretending to be a specialist :)
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 4 December 2019 13: 46
                0
                I'm glad you know where your place is. Whistle when 22160 descends into the Gulf of Aden or conduct reconnaissance somewhere, okay? We will discuss the need for this project with you.
                1. 30hgsa
                  30hgsa 4 December 2019 13: 49
                  -2
                  Why do I need you, do you whistle? :) In the meantime, the only way ....
                  Project 22160 “Vasily Bykov” patrol ship entered the Mediterranean Sea where, as part of the Russian squadron, it will conduct exercises with the Navy of several countries of the Southern Mediterranean
                  https://vz.ru/news/2019/11/5/1006719.html
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 December 2019 12: 29
      +1
      You don't need to build a 40k ton monster for this. The idea of ​​an anti-submarine helicopter carrier may be good, but a squadron of turntables can be placed on the converted Atlant hull. The Yak-141 in the Air Force would not have been accepted in any case, they had Su-27s there (well, in the air defense, which was then separate), which, at least, means that at least someone there had an understanding of what to build.
      1. mik193
        mik193 4 December 2019 13: 06
        0
        About the monster. Yes, I agree, but about the conversion to an anti-submarine cruiser - for lack of princesses they have a maid. I meant that it was not completely useless, it was possible to adapt ...
    3. Avior
      Avior 4 December 2019 14: 39
      0
      These are two different ships for different projects.
      The first Kiev on the span of 1123 began to build and abandoned
      None of the really existing 1143 showed themselves
  22. 30hgsa
    30hgsa 4 December 2019 11: 22
    0
    Kaptsov ... just to tears! How long they waited for you with your "creativity" :))) I understand that a ship with an armor belt less than 300 mm is useless in your opinion, but ...

    1. Line Cruiser Alaska - xs, I don’t know anything about them.

    2. UDC ... but nothing that UDC is also a headquarters, supply base, helipad, communications center and, as a whole, an indispensable ship for colonial wars, of course :)

    3. TAX. And their problem is not in the ships or their concept, but in the Yak-38. The plane turned out very so-so. Despite the fact that the British successfully used harriers in the Falkland War, the concept of an aircraft-carrying ship with UVVP aircraft proved to be justified. As a result, KMP orders the F-35V, and Mig-141 was sculpted from us.

    4. Zamvolt like a ship shit, yes, but it is rather an experienced "ship" :) It will test technology.

    5. LKSh - failed, but what does Oleg do not like about the concept of a corvette with modular weapons? so that the armor is not set? For security functions, patrols, it’s the same.

    F125 Baden-Württemberg ... here it is. The ship was conceived as a strike - to work on ground targets. Apparently, the Germans have problems with missile weapons, universal cells, because the first ship was really delivered with an extremely strange set.
  23. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 4 December 2019 11: 58
    +3
    1) About the latest projects, it’s too early to say anything. Maybe they will be super-useful in the coming wars?
    2) About non-combatant ships, too, it cannot be argued that they are useless. They were simply unlucky - they didn't "wave their fists."
    3) You can criticize only the ships that participated in the hostilities, but unsuccessfully, because of their design and weapons.
  24. smaug78
    smaug78 4 December 2019 12: 10
    -2
    By the title it’s clear: Oleg Popov himself, pah, Kaptsov laughing
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. Corn
    Corn 4 December 2019 14: 02
    -1
    Noble trolling from a true professional in his field, Oleg Kaptsov probably has no equal in this.
    The kindling of such a fire in the comments is in some ways even a talent.
  27. ser56
    ser56 4 December 2019 15: 46
    +1
    "The creators of Surkuf and Pravda did not seem to notice that the submarine, due to its specific contours, layout and lower buoyancy, is categorically incapable of operating in the same formation with destroyers and other surface ships. A submarine from such a" diving destroyer " will also be questionable. "
    actually the British started with their submarines with turbines ... hi
  28. Fevralsk. Morev
    Fevralsk. Morev 4 December 2019 16: 21
    0
    He who does not do anything is not mistaken. You can collect a collection of 10 awkward tanks or planes. Lack of result is also a result.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 5 December 2019 12: 36
      0
      the difference is that the awkward tank and plane are much cheaper than the awkward battleship
  29. mmaxx
    mmaxx 4 December 2019 16: 29
    +1
    About the "Alaska" we can say that they were useless for the American fleet. It would be suitable for anyone else. When they entered service, there were no more tasks for them. And in terms of anti-aircraft weapons, they did not differ from any other American cruisers.
    We have nothing to evaluate about UDC at all. The Americans have a large ILC. Marines need to be transported. On what they want on that and carry. If you think that such things are the best, then they are. Our admirals, there, "Mistrals" were scared. Too everything was good inside. A ship that decomposes everything and everyone in the fleet.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 4 December 2019 22: 55
      +2
      Quote: mmaxx
      About the "Alaska" we can say that they were useless for the American fleet.

      This is not entirely true.

      In the 30s, the Japanese and English fleets had a 30-node (on paper) wing of the LCR: Hood / Ripals / Rinaun and 4 Congo, respectively. New ships were also originally designed as high-speed. But the Americans not only did not have LCR, but also the main ships of the line had 21 knots, lagging behind half of the British and all Japanese with 25 knots. The Americans have long claimed that they have their own pride, but gradually they started to burn.

      A small high-speed battleship, like Scharnhonst or Dunkirk, could be a good option for Americans. But they could neither make a competent project nor implement it on time. But they made a great high-speed battleship, Iowa. That is, there were no tasks for Alaska, but there were already 2 times more ships for these tasks.

      Knowing the purchase the most reasonable, perhaps, would be the Italian version with the ejection of the central towers in New York and Wyoming. But this is an altistory.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 5 December 2019 01: 36
        +1
        They did not need a small undershot battleship. Any skirmish of such a nonsense with a normal battleship led to his death. And 10000 thousand miles of range has not been canceled.
        Alaska was created against cruisers. But the Japanese ran out of cruisers. And the Americans have so many other cruisers that Alaska is actually not needed.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 5 December 2019 10: 58
          +2
          Quote: mmaxx
          Any skirmish of such a nonsense with a normal battleship led to his death

          Yes, this is a common argument.

          In reality, the Americans were fighting with the KRT and the Congo, and on the Yamato Iowa it would probably not be enough. So a fast, cheap and well-armored Scharnhorst from the old 14 "Japanese would fit the real situation perfectly. But, again, he would know the buyback.
          Quote: mmaxx
          “Alaska” actually became unnecessary.

          Their functions were taken over by new LCs, the Baltics and aviation.
  30. Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 4 December 2019 21: 40
    +1
    What is characteristic - 4 out of 5 American ships. Well, tupy ...
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 4 December 2019 23: 01
      +2
      Quote: Good_Anonymous
      What is characteristic - 4 out of 5 American ships

      What is characteristic, in fact, random samples were selected. Kaptsov.
  31. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 5 December 2019 00: 11
    +3
    The fleet did not feel the need for such bulky landing ships.


    If you look at the biography of anyone starting with the "Tarawa", then perhaps the most popular ships. Every two to three years there is a combat operation. Transfer of troops, supply, evacuation of embassies and removal of refugees. Humanitarian and peacekeeping actions. There is also the role of command ships on them. Rarely does a cruiser and destroyer have such an active service.

    classic landings are a thing of the past.


    Of the four main wars that the United States and Europeans waged during the Cold War (Korean War, Suez Crisis, Vietnam and Falkland), in three the outcome of the war was decided by sea landing. Moreover, of these, in two cases, the landing was a combined marine and helicopter, for which UDCs are best suited.

    ... UDC transport tasks are provided by a fleet of military transports, which are larger and faster than any Tarava, while also being able to unload on the high seas.


    Inexplicable phrase. Ro-ro transports unload on the high seas?

    Tactical helicopter landings are made from the decks of high-speed aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class (as was the case during Operation Eagle Claw).


    It was not a landing, but a special operations operation. To occupy an aircraft carrier for landing helicopters means to exclude its use as an aircraft carrier. So you have to put next to another normal aircraft carrier. Will come even more expensive.

    It is interesting that, despite the increased price tag, the new generation of UDC "America" ​​completely lost the docking camera for landing boats, ...


    Very stupid decision, I agree.

    Well, the main question - who wants to be on her deck in the war zone, under the fire of the "Bastions" and "Caliber"?


    And who wants to be in the hold of "Rogov", "Shabalin" or "Zubr" in the range of a heavy machine gun or ATGM?

    Worcester


    Worcester?
    1. Santa Fe
      5 December 2019 02: 33
      0
      UDCs are so in demand that they began the construction of Puller-type floating bases for presence in hot spots

      About the special operation - in fact, these are helicopter landings. Marines have not landed for half a century


      Why Chester is pronounced Chester, and Worcester is Worcester, and so is all
      Also like Gloucester - Gloucester
      1. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 5 December 2019 19: 25
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Marines have not landed for half a century


        The 80-90s is the time of triumph of the American UDC and DVKD.

        1982 - Beirut
        1983 - Grenada
        1989 - Panama
        1990 - Liberia
        1992 - Somalia
        1999 - East Timor
        2002 - the high point of UDC, three MEUs were landed in Afghanistan by CH-53 helicopters over a distance of 500 km, the first in the history of amphibious assault on a country without sea borders
        2003 - Umm Qasr


        Quote: Santa Fe
        Why Chester is pronounced Chester and Worcester is Worcester


        And, thanks, I have never heard this word from the Americans, now I will know.

        In the "Marine collection" dedicated to "Sverdlov" they compared "Sverdlov" and "Worcester" (where it was named "Worcester") and considered the latter the best ship. Both in terms of air defense capabilities and ship-to-ship combat, in the latter case due to better radars and a higher rate of fire of 6dm guns. Shall we consider "Sverdlov" a ship of little use?
        1. Santa Fe
          5 December 2019 23: 38
          +1
          1982, I quote the chronicle ... On August 25, the first landing boat approached the pier in the port of Beirut under the gun ... of television cameras. The paratroopers on the shore were greeted by the US ambassador Dillon along with the ambassadors of Italy and France ...

          What is this nonsense? Is this an example of an amphibious operation ?? !!

          Grenada, Panama - the delivery of troops by air transport transporters, and there generally the fleet and Tarava

          No, Sasha, your examples are not good

          Why even compare Sverdlov and Worcester? Only due to the fact that this is the last Amer cruiser with 6 dm caliber, and Sverdlov was being built at this time. From created in different conditions, and their roles in the fleet were seen in different ways.

          Sverdlov, like the 30 bis destroyers, was built in general to revive shipbuilding enterprises after the Second World War than for any real military tasks.
          1. Sasha_rulevoy
            Sasha_rulevoy 6 December 2019 20: 03
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Is this an example of an amphibious operation ?? !!


            A boat with a platoon of paratroopers is the very tip of the iceberg. The landing was covered by four aircraft carriers (as in the Gulf War), and five landing ships participated, including the LPH-9 Guam of the Iwo Jima class, two dock ships and two tank landing ships. At least in terms of logistics, it is quite a large-scale military operation, the success of which largely depended on, among other things, the capabilities of the landing ships. And that the enemy did not offer resistance is his own business. No matter how "operetta" the war may be, it is still a war that requires thousands of specially trained people, and ships on which they, along with weapons, could be transported, fed and entertained on the way. Motobots and minesweepers, as in 1945 on Sakhalin, might not work. Incidentally, this battalion, which had landed, a year later, took off in full force.

            Grenada - the composition of the amphibious group: again LPH-9 "Guam", LHA-2 "Saipan" type "Tarawa", LSD-30 "Fort Snelling" type "Austin" and two "Newports". Nagging is incomprehensible.

            Panama - not the topic, I agree.

            The Gulf War is a special story. Here the landing force played a distracting role. Saddam, of course, knew about the resuscitation of "New Jersey" and "Missouri", so he did not expect anything other than a powerful amphibious assault. On the seashore, he placed the best divisions "Medina", "Hamurappi" and others. And on the border with Saudi Arabia, the extreme right flank remained uncovered. American landing ships entered the Persian Gulf empty, the marines remained on the coast and later pinned Iraqi forces in Kuwait. The main blow was dealt by the "light" divisions - 82nd and 101st, advancing farthest on Saddam's far right flank with the threat of going to the rear. The Iraqi army had to flee, and during the withdrawal they suffered huge losses from American air strikes. But if events had gone according to a different scenario, place Saddam's best forces on the Saudi border, and leave the coast uncovered. Then the Americans would probably repeat the Incheon scenario.
          2. Sasha_rulevoy
            Sasha_rulevoy 6 December 2019 20: 06
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Why even compare Sverdlov and Worcester?


            Well, there is no need, so there is no need. This is a claim to the "Marine Collection". To the close-minded Balakin, Kofman and Dashyan.
    2. Gato
      Gato 5 December 2019 17: 04
      +1
      Korean War, Suez Crisis, Vietnam and Falkland), in three the outcome of the war was decided by amphibious assault

      Naturally, how would the main operands still be able to get there? In addition, the UDC capacity is an average reinforced MP battalion, well, you can cram two if you want - but they are able to solve limited tactical tasks, mainly capturing and holding a section of the coast until the main forces land. And these are much more specialized transports.
      In principle, the main role of UDC is similar to the role of gunboats since the colonial policy of the same name - to scare the Papuans.
      1. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy 5 December 2019 23: 08
        +1
        Quote: Gato
        reinforced battalion MP


        Wesley Clarke's book "Winning the modern war" explains this. What is the main striking element of a tank / mechanized division? Tank? Howitzer? Machine gun? ATGM? None of the above. These are all just aids. The purpose of the tankers and infantrymen is only to force the enemy to maneuver (Clark has italicized this). And the main striking force is an anti-tank helicopter battalion, consisting of 24 Apache helicopters. Tanks and infantry, avoiding powerful nodes of resistance, entered an area important for the enemy and stopped. The enemy is throwing its troops and tanks to strengthen the defense in a threatening direction, and then their helicopters quickly detect and bam, bam. The enemy's forces have dried up - our infantry and tanks are moving on. Only the enemy began to stir - we stopped and waited for the aircraft to finish him off. If someone broke through before us, only here, as a last resort, we give battle. The Americans won both Gulf Wars this way. The difference is that in 1991, Iraqi forces tried to counterstrike the Americans bypassing them and eventually died on the Death Highway. And in 2003, Saddam was a scientist and ordered "Hamurappi" and "Medina" to stand to the death and not leave in any case. The Americans cut through their defenses in a couple of narrow sections and took Baghdad without a fight.

        Thus, the reinforced infantry battalion on the shore is one thing, but the same battalion, covered by the wing of combat helicopters and aircraft, is a completely different matter. The battalion was landed where the enemy did not expect an attack and could not resist. They landed, entrenched and wait for the enemy to begin a counterattack. The enemy moved to the landing site - helicopters from UDC will kill him. The enemy does nothing, then the infantrymen expand the bridgehead until they clear enough of the coast. Then tanks, howitzers, armored personnel carriers landed there. Then the bridgehead expands even more, then the engineers build berths, and then the main forces begin to land from military transports and ro-ro.

        Quote: Gato
        scare the Papuans.


        "Shabalin", "Zubr" or "Horns" cannot even do that. The Papuans will bury one rusty T-55 in the sand on the beach, disguise it, and nothing can be done to it. He will let the DK closer and from a cannon from 200-300 meters will shoot the bridge and gun mounts with accurate fire, and then under the waterline until it sinks.
  32. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 5 December 2019 12: 34
    +1
    I fully support the respected Oleg Kaptsov, only there you need to add the famous round Popovka, all the battleships, and the especially meaningless frigate battleship for 48 speed super-Gorshkov, the destroyer-type battleship Leader and AV Lamantin and Storm.
  33. Gato
    Gato 5 December 2019 16: 48
    0
    Negative experience is also experience. Steamboats at one time were also considered awkward dirty galoshes compared to handsome sailing ships. Only real databases can show who is beautiful - and who is smart.
  34. Rasskazov Sergey Ivanovich
    Rasskazov Sergey Ivanovich 11 December 2019 15: 23
    0
    The author fell off the stove. Not the slightest idea of ​​the fleet and the army. The author does not know HISTORY either. And about the purpose and use he will have to learn by learning at least in college equivalent to vocational schools. He heard about torpedoes, but about anti-torpedo defense, no, about the principle of unsinkability, too. About the complexity of use, you must at least finish the college.
  35. Izzy Gubinstein
    Izzy Gubinstein 11 February 2020 04: 24
    0
    the most stupid guns - jed with a bag of revolutionary bucks
  36. Pavel57
    Pavel57 11 February 2020 21: 52
    -1
    Soviet useless ships were easily transformed into useful ones. It was only realized once.